Gerry Adams was IRA's 'de facto' leader, ex-police officer claims in court

A former Northern Ireland police officer who worked in intelligence said Gerry Adams was "a very formidable opponent" as the IRA's "de facto" leader.

Witness B has been giving evidence against the former Sinn Féin leader at the High Court in London.

Adams, 77, is being sued by John Clark, Jonathan Ganesh and Barry Laycock, who were injured in IRA bombings in London and Manchester in 1973 and 1996.

Adams strenuously denies any involvement and has consistently rejected claims he was ever in the IRA. He is due to testify next week.

The claimants, who are seeking "vindicatory" damages of £1, allege he is personally liable for decisions to plant the bombs.

Witness B testified from behind a screen, after the court ordered his identity be kept secret.

He worked in Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) special branch from 1979.

Based on intelligence he read, he alleged Adams had been a senior member of the IRA army council and the "de facto" leader of the IRA.

Asked why he was not arrested, he replied: "He wouldn't answer any questions so what would have been the purpose of arresting him?"

Witness B described him as "a very formidable opponent" and a "strategic thinker".

He said the London Docklands bomb in February 1996, which ended the first IRA ceasefire, "was a great shock".

Although the RUC felt the ceasefire would break, the bombing "took us all by surprise".

In his witness statement, he stated: "Much of the intelligence I had access to led me to conclude that the defendant (Adams) was undoubtedly a member of the army council for the period encompassing the 1980s and 1990s.

"All the intelligence l saw pointed to his membership and leadership within the IRA."

It went on: "It is my certain knowledge, based on the materials I had access to at the time... that the bomb at Canary Wharf on 9 February 1996 was not simply sanctioned by the army council but was ordered by the army council.

"It is inconceivable that such an action would be carried out without its explicit orders.

"The defendant was at that time very much the first among equals on the army council of the IRA."

Witness B's statement added that if Adams was not the most important member of the IRA, "he pulled off a remarkable coup", as the British, Irish and United States governments believed otherwise.

"Had (Adams) not been the senior figure in the IRA that he was, there would have been absolutely no point in the governments dealing with him the way they did on the road to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998."

The court also heard from Austin Stack, whose father Brian was an Irish prison officer murdered by the IRA in 1983.

He met Adams in 2013, as part of efforts to obtain an apology.

Stack claimed Adams told him he was "very brave to meet with him" - a remark he described as "pure intimidation".

In his witness statement, he stated: "This was a strange opening comment from a man who presented himself as a politician and a man of peace."

Adams' lawyer said his client disagreed that he had used the words and asked Stack if his memory is accurate.

He said he remembered the comment, adding his brother was also at the meeting and would verify what was said.

Stack added that Adams had not challenged his version in a book he had published.

"He would've been open to take legal action but chose not to.

"I think the court can take its own inference from that."

Tim Hanley, a retired detective chief superintendent, also appeared in the witness box.

He served in the RUC and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) between 1986 and 2016 and first saw intelligence reports in 2006.

Hanley claimed they stated Adams had sat on the seven-member IRA army council until the 2000s.

Hanley alleged information he saw stated that Adams was "responsible for directing" the bombing of the Old Bailey and London Docklands.

Adams' lawyer James Robottom asked if there was evidence, why was his client not arrested?

"The operational reality from experience is Mr Adams, or anybody else in the IRA, would go through a 'no comment' interview.

"That's just the way it was back then.

"That's not making an excuse, that's just the reality."

Robottom claimed the intelligence Hanley saw was "less substantial and credible" then he had presented.

"No, I disagree," replied Hanley.

"It is an interpretation but I don't think it's right."

The trial will resume next week.