Haughey's Forty Years of Controversy (11 page)

John Kelly told Capt. Kelly what had happened. He then telephoned London to say that he had been called back to Ireland urgently, and he asked that Markham-Randall come to Dublin to conclude the negotiations. Markham-Randall was supposed to fly to Dublin, but Capt. Kelly monitored all the London planes, and the man was not on any of them. When the captain went to tell John Kelly at the Gresham Hotel, however, Markham-Randall was already there. They concluded that he must have come via Belfast, which only made them more suspicious.

‘There are many Irish and many Arabs who do not like the English,' Markham-Randall said. ‘I am here to help you.'

He seemed particularly well informed as he made numerous references to Capt. Kelly and referred to cabinet ministers Charles Haughey, Neil Blaney, Kevin Boland and Jim Gibbons as having strong northern Nationalist sympathies. ‘I could be a big help to your people,' he told John Kelly. ‘If I visited one or other of your training camps I would be very useful: small arms, fire and movement, tactics and that sort of thing.'

‘It's arms we are interested in at the moment,' John Kelly insisted.

Markham-Randall indicated that he could provide automatic weapons and grenades, and he even offered to provide them at a bargain price. This convinced Kelly that he was not a real dealer, because he was too eager to help, rather than make money for himself.

When Kelly confronted him, Markham-Randall said he was just trying to get access to the training camps. Kelly could have the weapons and keep the money for himself. In effect, he was trying to recruit John Kelly.Throughout the meeting Randall had a small flat top case in front of him. He may have been recording, or even filming their conversation. Downstairs Capt. Jim Kelly waited with three northern Republicans. When John Kelly told them what happened, some of the men wished to kill Markham-Randall on the spot, like Michael Collins would have done. ‘He shot the British spies and saved the day,' one of the men said.

But this was too much for Capt. Kelly. He warned that it would be too embarrassing for the Dublin government, which had been so cooperative up to this point. They therefore agreed not to kill Markham-Randall, who remained in Dublin for a few days, during which he telephoned Jock Haughey, who had already told him that his home was under special branch surveillance. Fleming believed he was George Dixon.

Markham-Randall wrote a note to G. Dixon in care of the manager of the Munster and Leinster Bank in Baggot Street, Dublin. George Dixon was the name on the account into which the government money was transferred to purchase weapons that were later at the centre of the arms crisis. The account had only been opened two weeks earlier, but by then it was obvious that outsiders were on to what was happening.

When Colonel Hefferon made inquiries through his British contacts, he was informed that Markham-Randall was a disreputable underworld type who would involve himself in activities like arms dealing. Of course, if he was one of their agents, the British would say that!

In February Capt. Kelly was shown a garda file on attempted arms purchases, which included a photograph of John Kelly and Jock Haughey alighting from the Oxford Street tube station. The gardaí apparently did not recognise John Kelly, but they did know that the man that the northerners referred to as Paddy ‘Dublin' was Jock Haughey. John Kelly had been interned in the north during the border campaign of the 1950s, so the British intelligence was undoubtedly aware of his identity. Yet Capt. Kelly continued to work with John Kelly in the attempt to acquire arms, even travelling to the continent together, and they continued to use the Dixon account to fund the operation, even though Markham-Randall was obviously aware of that account. In the light of Capt. Kelly's recounting of the events, it would be ridiculous to depict the whole affair as some kind of sophisticated conspiracy. He was the main functionary in arranging the gun-running, but his own account also exposed him as the virtual personification of the classic oxymoron ‘Military Intelligence'.

On the day following Fleming's testimony before the Public Accounts Committee the
Irish Times
carried an extraordinary article by Dick Walsh on Jock Haughey's activities, which was obviously based on leaked information. It recounted Jock's visit to London, with extraordinary details such as the meeting held in the sixth floor office of Hyman Godfrey at 299 Oxford Street. Godfrey, who had a company called Savoy Finance, was reputedly the intermediary who contacted Markham-Randall, who gave the prices for various weapons such as Sten guns, rifles, and Browning machine guns. Walsh even mentioned that Haughey and his colleague had lunch at the Irish Club in Eaton Square, where they ‘had salad and beef and potatoes'.

Of course, those details were irrelevant, except to suggest that Jock and his colleague were being closely watched. The article went on to relate how Markham-Randall came over to Dublin and stayed at the Gresham Hotel. He telephoned Jock, who told him that he was under special branch surveillance. If this was true, it would suggest that Jock's telephone was being tapped, and Walsh's story was planted to soften him up. Walsh went on to say that even though some of those involved wished to go ahead with the gun-running plans, Jock ‘refused to have any more to do with it.' He added that Jock was unlikely to have known the people he was involved with in advance and that ‘at best, they would have made uneasy partners'.

Although there were a number of apparent discrepancies in the account, those could have been included by whoever leaked the information in order to cover his own tracks, but there could be little doubt that the article would have bolstered Fleming's evidence in the public arena. When Jock Haughey appeared before the committee the following week, he made a statement at the outset.

‘I wish to state that I never, directly or indirectly, got in touch or sought to get in touch with Mr C. J. Haughey in order that he would authorise customs clearance for any guns, ammunition or materials of any nature or description, nor did he ever indicate to me what his attitude would be if such requests were made to him as the matter never arose between us.

‘I definitely state I never received or gave any cheque, or any valuable security in the name of George Dixon; nor did I ever use the name of George Dixon in any connection with any financial or banking dealings,' Jock added. Neither did he ever discuss with his brother, Charles, anything about the money voted for relief of distress, prior to receiving the subpoena to appear before the committee. He then announced he would not answer any questions because he would not have any immunity for his testimony. ‘I am advised,' he said, ‘that by giving evidence before this committee I might be liable in civil law and under the laws of the land for any answer I might make.' He added, rather pointedly, that his own lawyers were considering legal action in relation to supposed evidence given to the committee about him.

The committee subsequently cited him for contempt. but this is getting ahead of the story. Charlie was suddenly back in the eye of the storm. He vehemently denied either meeting the IRA leader, or promising him money. ‘No such meeting ever took place, and no such promise was ever made by me,' Charlie protested in an open letter to the committee chairman.

‘Chief Superintendent Fleming's evidence, if one may properly so call it,' he wrote, ‘included such phrases as – “I had other confidential information” – “I take it that” – “I am not sure but” – “I would imagine” – “as far as my impression goes” – “as far as I am aware” all, plainly, indications that his “evidence” was based on rumour, reports, and other hearsay. No court would ever permit such an abuse of privilege quite apart from the fact that such “evidence” would be inadmissible.'

Testifying before the committee on 2 March 1971, Charlie said it was impossible to give a full and proper accounting for the expenditures. ‘None of us ever envisaged that any such accountability would ever be required,' he explained. ‘We administered this particular money more or less along the same lines as we would administer the secret service vote.'

When the Dáil formally authorised the expenditure in March 1970, it did so without comment. ‘Nobody asked me questions,' Charlie said, ‘and it went through without any discussion whatsoever.'

The money was intended for relief of distress in Northern Ireland. A valid case could have been made for arguing that certain propaganda activities or providing arms were indeed means of relieving mental distress, but Charlie did not argue on these lines. Instead, he accepted that using money for such purposes was ‘absolutely' out of order and irregular.

‘Public funds were misappropriated,' he declared. ‘That is a criminal offence.'

There were doubts about the validity of expenditures in relation to: (1) a visit of Jock Haughey and others to London in August, 1969; (2) Capt. Kelly's meeting in Bailieboro in October 1969; (3) funds used to finance
The Voice of the North
; and (4) the money used to purchase the arms.

Charlie admitted that his brother and three others were selected to go to Britain by himself. ‘The purpose of the visits,' he explained, ‘was to mobilise assistance over there for relief of distress in the north'. He added that he knew nothing of Fleming's allegations that his brother had engaged in arms talks.

‘If the evidence which Chief Superintendent Fleming gave to this committee about my brother is as false and misleading as it is about me,' Charlie said, ‘then I think the committee should throw it into the waste paper basket.'

The money used by Capt. Kelly for the Bailieboro meeting had actually been paid to Col Hefferon by the Department of Finance. The captain had asked for the money; so the two army officers believed the £500 was for the Bailieboro meeting, but Charlie – who instructed the department to give the money to Hefferon – said he believed the funds was just part of payments made to Col Hefferon to fund an office to help northern refugees.

The circumstances surrounding the financing of
The Voice of the North,
however, were more complicated. Séamus Brady, the editor, had submitted a bill to the Bureau of Information which was forwarded to the Department of Finance. Charlie thought the Taoiseach's Department should look after the bill, so he instructed Fagan to enquire into the matter. But the Taoiseach's Department, under which the bureau of information functioned, refused to have anything to do with the bill.

‘I felt Mr Brady was unfairly treated,' Charlie told the committee. ‘Mr Brady understood that the Government Information Bureau wished him to publish this newspaper. Whether he was right or wrong, or did not understand it, I cannot say.

‘He came to me and indicated that he had put £650 of his own money into the publication and he was now in difficulty with the Government Information Bureau because they were not prepared to pay up,' Charlie continued. ‘I went to the Taoiseach on the matter. The Taoiseach gave me a direction and a ruling that public moneys were not to be used for the publication.'

Although there was no hope of Lynch agreeing to spend public money on the project, Charlie indicated he would personally make sure Brady would not be out of pocket on what had already been spent but he said it might be necessary to suspend publication for the time being. ‘You had better hold it,' Charlie told him. ‘I myself will see you all right with what you have spent if it come to that.'

Brady told Capt. Kelly that
The Voice of the North
would have ‘to fold as no money was coming in for it'. But within a couple of days Capt. Kelly came back to him with financial support in the form of a cheque drawn on a private account. Brady said that he had no idea that this was government money. Fagan told the committee that shortly afterwards he saw Brady's original bill on Charlie's desk. ‘What is being done about this?' Fagan asked.

‘Oh, that is being looked after,' Charlie replied. ‘Ask Kelly how Brady's affairs stand?'

The captain told Fagan to ‘tell the minister he is OK'. Thus, contrary to the specific direction of the Taoiseach, government funds were used to support
The Voice of the North,
but Charlie swore that he did not know who helped Brady out. He also testified that he knew nothing about four private bank accounts used to secretly channel the money. The first he heard of them, he said, was during the arms trial.

Two of the witnesses felt Charlie must have known about one of accounts, but neither was definite. Capt. Kelly testified that he ‘certainly' told Fagan about this account. ‘And,' he added, ‘I should imagine Mr Haughey would know too. I cannot see any reason why not.' Fagan thought it ‘inconceivable' that he would not have told the minister but added that he could ‘not honestly recall' mentioning it on any specific occasion.

Charlie explained that he had selected three northern Nationalists to distribute the relief money in Northern Ireland when it became apparent that the Irish Red Cross could not operate there. He was not aware of the bank accounts opened in false names. As far as he was concerned these were none of his business; they were operated by the northern Nationalists.

‘If they nominated someone else to administer the fund, that was not really any particular concern of mine,' he argued. ‘We were not concerned with the mechanics of the payments.'

He forcefully denied knowing that any of the relief money had been spent on buying weapons. ‘I have no knowledge whatever,' he emphasised, ‘that any of these moneys, any halfpenny of these moneys, went for the procurement of arms.'

As a result of his refusal to testify before the Dáil's Public Accounts Committee Jock Haughey was sentenced to six months in jail by the high court, but this was overturned on constitutional grounds, when he appealed the conviction to the supreme court. In a unanimous judgment, announced on 24 June 1971, Chief Justice Cearbhall Ó Daláigh concluded that the high court had acted unconstitutionally in not according Jock a jury trial.