Man accused over guns and explosives is refused bail to take DNA test to establish if he is father of newborn baby

John Kelly, 43, was seeking release from custody to undergo a DNA test and then spend time with the child if their familial relationship is confirmed.

Denying his application, Lord Justice Horner ruled that any risks could not be managed.

Kelly, of Columbcille Court in the city, was arrested during a major police operation earlier this year.

Two Soviet grenade heads, plastic explosives, two electric detonators and two handguns were seized in searches of properties on September 7.

Sixteen PSNI officers sustained injuries when rioting broke out at the scene.

Kelly denies charges of possessing a firearm, ammunition and explosives with intent to endanger life.

He is allegedly linked to the recovered weaponry by forensic and mobile phone evidence.

Two other members of his family have also been charged as part of the investigation.

Prosecutors have claimed that Kelly used his more vulnerable relatives to transport and store weaponry on behalf of the New IRA.

He allegedly ran a money-lending scheme for the dissident republican grouping, a previous court heard.

Defence lawyers dispute the strength of the DNA and mobile phone evidence against him.

At a renewed application for bail, the judge was told Kelly could potentially be the father of a newborn baby.

“He wants to be released firstly to complete a DNA test and to spend time with that child,” a prosecution barrister said.

She described the suggested change of circumstances as “entirely speculative at this stage” and insisted that the checks can be carried out in custody.

Counsel for the defence said the baby’s mother is “quite sure” that Kelly is the father.

“He would be keen to get out and pursue a relationship,” the lawyer submitted.

“He also (wants) to get some certainty around him being the actual father of this child.”

It was also contended that Kelly has already been safely released temporarily to attend a family funeral.

But Lord Justice Horner ruled that the accused must remain in custody.

He said: “On the basis of the evidence I would not be in a position to impose conditions which would adequately meet the risks.”