Supergrass quizzed over past
UVF supergrass Robert Stewart has rejected suggestions that he may have been involved in more than one death.
Stewart, giving evidence at the Belfast Crown Court trial of 14 people he and his brother Ian have implicated in their UVF crimes, was initially questioned about the alleged involvement of one defendant in the October 2000 murder of UDA rival Tommy English.
Defence QC Brendan Kelly claimed that Stewart had implicated his client 35-year-old Jason Loughin in the murder, either because he did not like him, or because he knew some of the other accused.
“How can I be sure, on your evidence, that he was there?” asked Mr Kelly about Loughlin’s alleged involvement.
“You can be definitely sure. He was there the whole day,” replied Stewart.
The 37-year-old informer, who admitted he had made an “error” in his interviews with police about Loughlin, however, rejected the suggestion that when it came to identifying in court those he claimed were involved, he had simply looked into the dock and read off their list of names.
He also claimed that a police record on Loughlin during the day of the murder, may not be “reliable at that time”.
However, Mr Kelly suggested even further that Stewart had “swept into whatever happened on October 31st 2000, anyone that you fancied”.
“That’s incorrect,” he replied.
Later when quizzed by defence QC Eilis McDermott about the death of a man so badly beaten, he died never regaining consciousness, Stewart in turn asked was the lawyer: “trying to say I had something to do with that”.
Ms McDermott then simply asked of Stewart did he know whether he “had anything to do with that”.
“I didn’t have anything to do with it … 100% sure,” said Stewart.
However, when Ms McDermott pressed further, suggesting that he did not know what happened to any victim he admitted attacking at the hotel, Stewart replied: “That man was not one of them… you’re barking up the wrong tree with me love”.
That last quip brought a swift rebuke from trial judge Mr Justice Gillen who told Stewart to address counsel “in the appropriate way”.
Ms McDermott in turn told Stewart: “I have not accused you of murder… not yet!”
She then added: “But I am suggesting to you that you leave yourself open to that accusation when you go about beating people up, rendering them unconscious”.
Ms McDermott said that Stewart could not afford admitting to involvement in any other murders to police, who had told him they “bloody well hoped” he wasn’t involved further.
That, said the lawyer, would have meant that “all bets were off”, meaning the deal with police would have ended.
As Ms McDermott pressed Stewart on his evidence, the informer rejected the suggestion that he increasingly gave police “options… possibilities… alternatives” for what happened on the day of Mr English’s murder and the role people played in it.
At one stage he accepted that he may have told police he was second in command of the UVF unit who carried out the shooting, but then said that “over time” he didn’t think he held the rank then.
He also accepted his memory maybe “hazy” about some points, but he could remember “the important points”.
“Your evidence can’t be relied upon,” said Ms McDermott, who then suggested for his evidence to be acceptable: “You would have to back yourself both ways”.
Earlier Stewart questioned the veracity of the evidence of another witness in the case, a neighbour of the English family who claimed to have seen him that day.
Stewart complained that she had only come forward with her evidence after nine years and that “she had one story, then another story”.
“Who does that remind you of Mr Stewart?” asked Ms McDermott who will continue with her cross-examination on Thursday.
