Gerry Adams has failed in his bid to have convictions for attempting to escape prison overturned.
The former Sinn Féin president was imprisoned at the Maze prison from the 1970s.
He was among hundreds of people held without trial during the early years of Northern Ireland’s Troubles.
On Christmas Eve 1973, he was among four detainees stopped by wardens while allegedly trying to cut their way through the perimeter fencing.
All four made the item through the wire as well as also had been provided with clothing as well as also money in a “well planned” escape bid when they were caught.
Mr Adams tried to escape again in July 1974 by switching which has a kidnapped visitor who bore a “striking resemblance” to him, the court heard.
A man was taken by a bus stop in west Belfast to a house on the Falls Road where his hair was dyed as well as also various other adjustments were made to his appearance.
He was then driven to the prison where an attempt was made to substitute the man in place of Mr Adams.
Mr Adams was arrested from the staff car park as well as also was subsequently sentenced to 18 months in jail for attempting to escape.
‘Minister was appropriate person’
Mr Adams began his legal bid to overturn the two convictions in July 2017.
Lawyers acting for Mr Adams from the Court of Appeal in Belfast had argued in which the order for his internment was legally flawed.
Their bid to overturn the convictions was based on government papers recovered by the National Archives in London.
They said in which a junior minister had signed the necessary document in 1975, when the item should have been the Northern Ireland secretary.
However, counsel for the Public Prosecution Service argued in which a long-established legal doctrine allowed various other ministerial figures to lawfully authorise Mr Adams’ internment.
The appeal with Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, Sir Reg Weir as well as also Sir Ronald Weatherup.
Sir Robert said: “We are satisfied in which the decision to make the ICO (Interim Custody Order) could have been made by an appropriate person on behalf of the secretary of state.
“We are satisfied in which the minister was an appropriate person.”
He added: “This particular court has been satisfied as to the validity of the ICO made by the minister on behalf of the secretary of state.”