UVF blackmail plot a ‘show of strength’

A businessman was targeted in a blackmail plot as part of an East Belfast UVF “show of strength”, the High Court has heard.

Prosecutors claimed the victim was threatened over a £7,000 drug debt said to be owed by his son.

Ross Barr is accused of being one of three men involved in the bid to menace him into paying the money.

Defence lawyers argued, however, that the 31-year-old only drove the others to the scene last month as an “unwitting stooge”.

Barr, of Roslin Gardens in Belfast, was refused bail on a single charge of blackmail.

The court was shown video footage of a Hyundai car belonging to the accused at the injured party’s premises on October 16. Barr remained in the vehicle as two other men got out and approached the businessman.

One of the pair allegedly told him his son owed £5,000 from drug dealing, as well as an additional £2,000 fine. He informed the victim that he was there to collect the money on behalf of the Ballybeen UVF, it was claimed.

According to the prosecution, that man threatened to “take his f*****g head off and put his lights out” if payment was not made. In a subsequent phone call he allegedly warned the businessman that all his cars and property would be burnt out.

Searches carried out at Barr’s home as part of the investigation led to the seizure of £25,000 in cash which his parents claimed was theirs as part of an inheritance, the court heard.

But Mark O’Connor, prosecuting, argued that a notebook found in the defendant’s bedroom contained a list of names of those believed to owe money for drugs.

The barrister claimed Barr had full knowledge of the blackmail plot, with intelligence suggesting he is associated with the East Belfast UVF.

Opposing bail, Mr O’Connor submitted: “This incident has been assessed as a paramilitary show of strength.”

Defence counsel Sean Devine insisted his client remained in the car at the scene and knew nothing about the conversation with the alleged victim. Mr Devine contended: “He was an unwitting stooge in this and someone who could be burned.”

Refusing bail, Mr Justice Fowler ruled: “I’m quite satisfied there’s a serious risk of interference with witnesses and … further offences.”