The Five Demands

Murder accused ‘has case to answer’ (Belfast Telegraph)
The trial of a man accused of murdering two soldiers should continue because the defendant has a case to answer, a judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Anthony Hart dismissed an application by Colin Duffy’s lawyer to halt the hearing because the material against him was “tenuous”.
Brian Shivers and Duffy deny the murder of Sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21, who were shot dead by the Real IRA as they collected pizzas with comrades outside Massereene Army base in Antrim town in March 2009
The judge at Antrim Crown Court said: “This is not a case where at this stage there is either no evidence against Duffy, nor is it the case where the prosecution evidence has been so discredited or is so intrinsically weak that it could not properly support a conviction. The application is accordingly refused.”
Duffy, 44, from Forest Glade in Lurgan, Co Armagh, and Shivers, 46, from Sperrin Mews, in Magherafelt, Co Londonderry, deny two charges of murder and the attempted murder of six others – three soldiers, two pizza delivery drivers and a security guard.
Barry MacDonald QC, defending Duffy, has said that DNA found in the attack car could have been left at a time entirely separate from the incident and asked the judge to halt the case because a jury could not properly convict.
The judge, while reserving his final verdict on guilt or innocence, listed evidence which could entitle a tribunal of fact to reach a number of conclusions.
These included that the previous owner of the getaway car did not know the two accused and neither had been in his car during the years when he owned it; The Vauxhall Cavalier was purchased to be used in the attack; on the day of the murders, the attackers placed in the car a coffee jar with rounds of ammunition, a bag of camouflage clothes and balaclavas; and a minimum of three people were involved in the attack using this car.
Speaking about the 14 conclusions overall, the judge added: “When all the circumstances are taken together, they show at the very least that Duffy was in the car in circumstances that could lead to the conclusion that he was one of those who travelled in the car before the attack.”
He added: “I am satisfied that the prosecution has established that Duffy has a case to answer, that he was a secondary party to this attack in that he either helped to prepare the car for the attack or helped to try to destroy the car after the attack.”