JURORS has been told a man accused of a plot to murder a former loyalist leader was a fantasist rather than a terrorist.
The claim was made at a trial of three men accused of attempting to kill Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair and Sam McCrory, two former high profile figures in the UDA and Ulster Freedom Fighters.
Antoin Duffy, 39, his cousin Martin Hughes, 36, and Paul Sands, 32, deny being involved in a murder plot against the pair. Mr Duffy and Mr Hughes also deny terrorism charges and the trial has entered its ninth week at the High Court in Glasgow.
Mr Duffy's defence QC Derek Ogg, in his closing speech, urged the jury of nine women and five men to acquit his client, a "Walter Mitty' character and someone with a disordered mind.
The QC said at the time of the alleged offences Mr Duffy was suffering from four mental disorders, including post-traumatic stress and was addicted to the drug Tramadol.
Mr Ogg said: " From one minute to the next minute Antoin Duffy iduring this time incapable of organising anything except where he is getting his Tramadol.
"He is talking about armour piercing bullets, talking about explosives, talking about wanting to start a war. These things were said in the moment to boast, to show off, to impress others, to make himself look big."
Mr Ogg said there was no evidence Mr Duffy had ever had a gun or bullets, or had even looked at extremist websites .
Mr Duffy was under surveillance for 10 months from December 2012 until October 2013. which included having his home bugged.
Mr Ogg said: "There is a scarcity of information of any intention to carry out what is being blathered about. There is no evidence of him looking at extremist sites or how to build a bomb."
The QC added: "Even the best of us say things we don't mean in the privacy of our own homes. We say them because we are angry, or depressed. It doesn't become a crime unless we mean it. In 10 months nothing happened of a criminal nature."
Craig Convery, 37, and Gordon Brown, 29, are also on trial and deny being involved in organised crime.
The trial before Lady Scott continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article