Prosecution service refuses to say why loyalist wasn’t charged under terror laws after being caught with firearms

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/prosecution-service-refuses-to-say-why-loyalist-wasnt-charged-under-terror-laws-after-being-caught-with-firearms/a647422854.html

• Prominent loyalist and co-accused were caught by police with guns

Allison Morris

The Public Prosecution Service has refused to say why prominent loyalist Winston ‘Winkie’ Irvine and a co-accused were not charged under terrorism legislation after they were caught with firearms.

Irvine (49) and Robin Workman (54) will be sentenced on Thursday, following a plea hearing last week during which both were remanded in custody.

Terrorism charges would have allowed a judge in the Crown Court case to issue a harsher sentence.

The pair previously admitted a host of firearms charges dating back to June 2022 when police seized a bag containing weapons and ammunitionfrom the boot of Irvine’s car in north Belfast.

After listening to submissions from both the prosecution and defence, Judge Gordon Kerr KC said he was “satisfied that the custody threshold has been met in respect of both defendants”.

The Crown’s case against both men was set out by a senior barrister. The KC revealed that on the morning of June 8, 2022 police observed both men in the Glencairn Crescent area of the city.

Police observed Workman taking an item from the side door of his van, which was placed into the open boot of Irvine’s car.

After the boot was closed, Irvine drove to nearby Disraeli Street where, at 9.32am, he was stopped by police.

In what was branded by the Crown barrister as “the first false statement” made by Irvine, he told police he could not account for the bag found in the boot of his car and did not know what it contained.

Items located in the bag included a Brixia pistol, a Brocock air cartridge revolver, ammunition and magazines.

Irvine’s barrister Brenda Campbell KC outlined his work and direct engagement with the PSNI and Irish and UK governments over many years.

The court was also told Irvine has been invited to travel to Afghanistan by a UN ambassador to speak about his “peacebuilding” work.

Ms Campbell added that the “individual before the court” was evidenced to be “exceptional”.

Workman’s barrister Michael Borrelli KC told Judge Kerr that an air rifle found in Workman’s home was used to “cull vermin”.

The court was also told about Workman’s previous service with the UDR.

When Judge Kerr asked what explanation had been offered by Irvine regarding the items found in his boot, Ms Campbell accepted he hadn’t put one forward. She did, however, say that Irvine’s possession of the items “was not for any violent or terrorist intent” and pointed out the items were “low grade.”

Both provided references to the court and argued that their clients should get less than the minimum sentence of five years. That can be split between prison and probation.

Had they been charged under legislation to which the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act (2021) applies, both would have had to serve two thirds of their sentence and then apply to the parole commissioners for a release date.

The legislation ends the prospect of earlier release for anyone convicted of a serious terror offence and has been used in the case of dissident republicans.

The law allow courts to consider whether a much wider range of offences have a terror connection — for example, an offence involving the supply or possession of firearms with a proven link to terrorist activity — and to hand down tougher punishments. This also ends the prospect of terror offenders being released automatically before the end of their sentence.

It expands Registered Terrorist Offender notification requirements — the system whereby offenders are required to provide the police with regular updates on changes to their circumstances, such as a new address, new phone or when they plan to travel abroad.

During a bail hearing for Workman in 2022 a police officer told the court that the gunrunning incident had the “hallmarks of a paramilitary operation”.

Despite this, the PPS decided not to prosecute offences to which the beefed up terrorist provisions apply, saying only for guidance purposes that as the case is currently before the Crown Court for sentencing on May 20 it is considered inappropriate for the PPS to comment on this matter.