'Clear Stone of murder bid' call

Stone was restrained by guards at the doors of Parliament Buildings

Loyalist killer Michael Stone should be acquitted of trying to murder the Sinn Féin leaders as there is insufficient evidence, his defence lawyer has said.

Stone denies attempting to murder Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, as well as other explosive and weapons charges.

Orlando Pownall QC said he had not gone beyond "merely preparatory" acts.

Prosecution QC Charles Adair said Stone had completed his preparations, and all he had left to do was enter Stormont's debating chamber to launch his attack.

Mr Pownall argued that although attempting the impossible does not necessarily mean a defendant is not guilty, in this case, given Stone's physical condition and the fact that he still had to get past security, "his intended purpose was a purpose he could never have achieved as a matter of common-sense".

He said he accepted the judge could find there was a "guilty intent" on Stone's part, given what he had said during police interviews and in a letter to Belfast Telegraph journalist Lindy McDowell, where he claimed he planned to "slit the throats" of Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness.

'Merely preparatory'

However, the London-based barrister added: "We would submit that purely as a matter of law... there is insufficient evidence, applying the act, for any tribunal of fact to conclude that the steps taken thus far were anything beyond merely preparatory."

He said the defence team's submission would be that Stone's preparatory acts would have ended, and the actual offence of attempted murder begun, "if Mr Stone had entered the chamber and set light to one or more of the devices and/or gone towards Messrs Adams and McGuinness".

On the charge of inflicting actual bodily harm on a female Stormont security guard who broke a bone in her hand while attempting to jam the revolving doors, Mr Pownall said she had behaved with "great courage" but Stone did not assault her.

'Weaponry'

Prosecution barrister Charles Adair said Stone "had concluded for effective purposes, all the preparatory acts necessary apart from reaching the chamber".

"He had constructed the weaponry, he had gone to the premises where the victims would be, he had entered the premises and got inside and the last act was to get to the chamber and throw one or other of the devices," he said.

Mr Adair said "any rational person" would say that actually entering Parliament Buildings "is more than merely preparation for the act itself" and added that "the best way to ascertain his intentions is from his own mouth".

Turning to the charge of actual bodily harm, Mr Adair said the authorities were clear that it did not matter if the injury was suffered indirectly but was as a result of the incident in general.

Mr Justice Deeney reserved his ruling and told the court he would deliver it on Friday.