
By the end, the drive down the A1 came to be almost as familiar as the road to my own house.
Past Dromore, past Banbridge, past the sign for the Dromantine monastery; turn off left and go through the big roundabout. Past the police station and then Tesco, turn right and pull into the large carpark opposite Newry Courthouse.
Then the same routine every morning. Get the video camera out of the car boot, greet the police officers who I came to know, find a spot clinging to the metal barrier outside the steel security gate and then wait for the black Skoda to arrive at 0915.
It started during a heatwave. I got sunburnt waiting outside court on the second afternoon. Then we suffered days of rain where I struggled to keep my camera dry while the drops rolled down the back of my neck. By the conclusion, we were once again dealing with soaring temperatures.
After the arrivals, I would enter the courthouse, have my bag searched and then, even though I quickly came to be on first name terms with the court security staff, show my photographic ID. Then wait until we were summoned into Court 1.
I had the same spot every day on the back row of the wooden press bench. I am left-handed so like to sit on the far left so my writing arm is not bashing against other journalists in the cramped working space.
There were 10 journalists inside the court. Most organisations rotated their staff and others did not attend every day, so the actual number who were there throughout was much smaller. It seems like hundreds have written about the Jeffrey Donaldson trial, but there were just a few who actually endured it.
It is now more than two weeks since the verdicts were delivered. On the days which followed, I received several invites to do television or radio appearances, to tell people about what it had been like to be inside that courtroom. I turned them all down. Perhaps I was worried about saying the wrong thing; perhaps I just needed a rest from it.
In the weeks that the trial was going on, and since, I have had scores of people asking me about it. Nothing I have worked on in the three decades previously has generated anything close to the same amount of interest. People I have not heard from in years have suddenly got back in touch wanting to talk, to pick my brain for information. In the shops, while getting my hair cut, through a relentless slew of messages on my phone, there have been those constant requests to know what it was really like.
And I have proven to be a relentlessly disappointing conversationalist, sharing neither opinion nor colour. I have listened as multiple people have told me what they think; often it has been ill-informed and inaccurate, but I have refrained from giving anything back. I reported on every day of the court proceedings but have remained largely silent since.
Plenty of colleagues have told me that I need to write about what happened in court. Some have said I should consider a book. A small number have suggested it is my responsibility as a journalist to share. And still I have resisted.
It has taken time for the reasons for my reluctance to crystallise. Part of it is instinct. I naturally want to go against the grain. Everyone else is writing and talking about it, giving their opinion, so my preference is to look in a different direction. Even as I type this, I am battling against the strong conviction that I have nothing useful to contribute. To put it more bluntly, what I think is more or less irrelevant when set against the gravity of the subject matter.
But the sense of unease runs even deeper. I know that my account would inevitably delve into the personal experience of covering a trial which attracted unprecedented interest. Any detail of the challenges involved invariably seems to take the focus away from the evident trauma and suffering at the centre of all of this, and that makes me feel queasy.
I have thought about this a lot in the past three weeks. In truth, it has been difficult to think about much else. I am not sure it matters now, but I have done my best to reach an accommodation over what I am comfortable in sharing.
I am never a great sleeper, but I existed almost without sleep during the duration of the Donaldson trial. I found it difficult to mentally disentangle myself at evenings from what was going on during the day, and multiple glasses of red wine seemed not to help. On the odd occasions when I did doze off, I invariably woke up with a start, panicking that I had perhaps made a mistake in something I had written.
During the long sleepless hours, the detail of what was revealed in court kept coming back to me. The accounts of the two victims, their haunted expressions and evident continuing torment, were never far from my thoughts.
I thought a lot about the jury as well. These 12 strangers who I watched for 20 days across a small courtroom, who had been plucked from their everyday routines and given this crushing and disturbing responsibility of making the correct decision.
And, I am ashamed to admit, I worried about myself and the brittleness of my own mental health when surrounded with so much trauma. I was paid to do a job and I tried to do it to the best of my ability, but it would be dishonest not to concede that there is a personal cost.
Amid the almost unbearable tension of the final moments when the verdicts were delivered, it is difficult to remember much with certainty. But I clearly recall noticing the tremble in my own hand as I hit the key on my computer which would send the news around the world.
This article first appeared in the News Letter




