By Vincent Kearney
BBC News
2 October 2015



Margaret Keeley claims Freddie Scappaticci interrogated and falsely imprisoned her in Belfast in 1994

An attempt to have part of a legal action held in secret against a man alleged to have been the most high ranking agent within the Provisional IRA will be heard early next year.

A woman claims she was interrogated and falsely imprisoned by Freddie Scappaticci.

He is alleged to have been an army agent codenamed Stakeknife.

Margaret Keeley is suing him, the Northern Ireland's police force and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for damages.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the MoD want some of the court hearings to be held behind closed doors for "national security" reasons.
Sensitive

Margaret Keeley claims the police and MoD both knowingly allowed her to be interrogated and threatened by a man working as an agent for the state over a two-day period in the New Lodge in Belfast in 1994.

She is claiming damages for personal injuries, false imprisonment, assault, battery, trespass to the person and misfeasance in public office.

The PSNI and the MoD are seeking to use what are called "closed material procedures" for the first time a civil case in Northern Ireland.

This would allow their lawyers to introduce sensitive information that could only be seen by the judge and a security-vetted "special advocate" who would be appointed to represent Margaret Keeley.

The advocate would not be allowed to give her or her legal team precise details about the sensitive material introduced during the secret section of the trial.
Overturned

The police and the MoD argue that closed hearings are essential because some of the material is so sensitive it could potentially damage national security.

At the High Court in Belfast on Friday, Mr Justice Stephens said the application will be heard in February.

Freddie Scappaticci, the grandson of an Italian immigrant who came to Northern Ireland in search of work, denies he was an army agent.

An initial request to include him in the legal action was refused, but that decision was later overturned on appeal.

In his judgement overturning the initial decision, Mr Justice McCloskey said the allegations being made gave rise to "acute public concern and interest... and raise the spectre of a grave and profound assault on the rule of law and an affront to public conscience".