Orde will only compete if he thinks he can win

0 comments

20 July 2011
Belfast Telegraph

Could Northern Ireland's former Chief Constable become the new head of the Metropolitan Police? Brian Rowan examines his case

Who knows where that policing and political storm sweeping London is going to blow next?

The phone-hacking scandal has battered the News of the World, blown it away, and toppled big figures in high places, among them the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. He is the man who in 2009 won the race for Britain's biggest policing job, edging out then PSNI Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde.

It is a post that Orde, no stranger to newspaper headlines and probes, would still want; a job, no doubt, he believes he could do and do well.

His work here was the implementation of the reforms that came with the Patten Report, recommendations that marched the RUC off the stage and heralded a new era known as new policing.

There were many big moments and big decisions, among them a first ever meeting with republican leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in Downing Street, and then Orde's naming of the IRA in connection with the Northern Bank robbery.

Sir Hugh, now President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), will miss all that, the day-to-day stuff of operational policing, and day-to-day contact with the biggest investigations. And the Met, the top job there is, could be his way back; that is, if he decides to run.

On the bookie's lists that appeared on Monday, his name was there at short odds, but not the favourite.

"If he decides to go for it, it will be because he sees himself as the best candidate," his friend and former policing colleague Peter Sheridan tells the Belfast Telegraph.

"If he thinks he's going to come second, he won't go."

So, there is a decision to be made by Orde, to try again, or not to, and what Sheridan is saying is that he won't run just to make up the numbers -- to be part of the field.

"He brings with him that experience from here ... he has previous experience of London and his national role in ACPO," Mr Sheridan a former assistant chief constable and now Chief Executive of Co-operation Ireland, says.

"All of that gives you somebody who could easily take over that most complex and difficult position at the moment," he adds.

And, with the Olympics in London next year, Sheridan points to another Orde plus-point.

"In his counter-terrorism role he was a solid thinker and that gives him the experience to manage the potential threats that could arise in the period of the Olympics."

In recent days, Sir Paul Stephenson and Assistant Commissioner John Yates have both resigned -- after a period in the news and the headlines linked to the hacking scandal. And Orde knows all about press scrutiny.

He had it in terms of the contractual perks of the job he did here, and had it when it emerged that, while married, he had been having an affair with an undercover detective in England. The two are now engaged and have two young children. One source described that as a "private matter" -- not something that will play into Orde's decision making when it comes to will he or won't he try again for Britain's top policing job.

Orde joined the Met in 1977 and climbed to the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner before joining the PSNI in 2002.

Before then he had long experience of Northern Ireland investigating the killing of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, an investigation that looked inside what many call the "dirty war". So, his policing experience is significant.

In Northern Ireland, Orde was able to deal with the pressures and challenges found at that interface where policing and politics meet.

And his friend Peter Sheridan says he demonstrated "that he was someone of independent thinking" -- someone able to make his own decisions.

He would not be intimidated by London Mayor Boris Johnson or any other politician. But will the marathon running Chief Constable want to compete again?

The answer to that question is yes, but only if he thinks that this time he can win.
Continue Reading... Labels: , ,


Vilifying lawyers defending a 'killer' is a dangerous trend

0 comments

8 July 2011
Guardian Unlimited
Fiona Bawdon


Media disgust with QC who cross-examined Dowler family is a blurring of lines that can lead to personal attacks on lawyers

Jeffrey Samuels QC was vilified by parts of the media after his cross-examination of the parents of Milly Dowler during the trial that ended with the murder conviction of his client, Levi Bellfield.

Lawyers acting for murder defendants do not expect to win many popularity contests, but nor, until recently, have they expected to be the subject of personal attacks by the press.

The treatment of Samuels is part of a growing trend for the media to blur the previously well-understood lines between lawyers and the clients they speak for in a professional capacity.

After the Bellfield case Samuels was described as "boastful" (for allowing his chamber's website to characterise him as sought-after and highly effective), as earning "hundreds of thousands of pounds" acting for "heinous criminals", and as a resident of a "large, five-bedroom, £1.4m detached house in Prestwich".

One columnist even suggested the Dowler family might have found his cross-examination particularly unpalatable because he resembled his client.

For all the vilification, though, Samuels got off relatively lightly compared with other lawyers who have acted for controversial clients.

Probably the most shameful example is that of the leading civil liberties solicitor Saimo Chahal, who was demonised in the media for representing Peter Sutcliffe, the murderer dubbed the Yorkshire Ripper, as he sought get a tariff after which he could be considered for release from his life sentence.

That case prompted a tabloid feeding frenzy with Chahal, rather than Sutcliffe, the target of much of the vitriol. "How could a WOMAN fight to win freedom for The Ripper?" thundered a five-deck headline in the Sun. Many readers would be "astonished a FEMALE lawyer is leading his fight", the paper proposed.

Other coverage suggested Chahal had no business acting for Sutcliffe as she was the mother of a teenage daughter.

Large photographs of Chahal were published, alongside those of Sutcliffe and his 13 female victims (in the Daily Mail her picture was four times the size of Sutcliffe's).

Most despicably of all the columnist Richard Littlejohn suggested Chahal, who has a long record of bringing groundbreaking cases, might have a crush on Sutcliffe; the writer likened her to "one of those madwomen who write to serial killers and end up marrying them". The male barrister in the case, Paul Bowen, did not warrant a mention in any of the coverage.

Fairly predictably, Chahal received a barrage of hate mail and threats, from as far away as Australia.

In Samuels' case, the Sun reported that, after being bombarded with threatening emails, the barrister was offered a panic alarm at his home and a "cop guard".

The threats made against Chahal and Samuels might not have been serious, but by tarring lawyers with the same brush as their clients, the media is playing a dangerous game.

Just recently, the Scots lawyer Paul McBride QC was among a group of people associated with Celtic football club to be sent parcel bombs by a loyalist organisation. McBride, who has a reputation as a robust advocate, had previously acted for the club's manager at a high-profile disciplinary hearing before the Scottish FA.

None of the bombs exploded, but not all lawyers made a target by sectarians are so lucky. In 1989, the Catholic Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane died after being shot 14 times by loyalist paramilitaries as he ate with his family. He was a respected civil liberties solicitor and had successfully challenged the British government in a number of important human rights cases.

His murder came less than a month after Douglas Hogg, a Home Office minister at the time, complained that some solicitors in Northern Ireland were "unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA", remarks widely construed as referring to Finucane. Hogg's comments appeared to ignore the fact that Finucane had also acted for a number of loyalist clients.

With remarkable prescience Séamus Mallon, the Social Democratic and Labour party MP, quickly responded that Hogg's comments could put lives at risk. "I have no doubt there are lawyers walking the streets of the north of Ireland who have become targets for assassins' bullets as result of the statement that has been made tonight," he said.
Continue Reading... Labels: , ,


Incompetent policing is not same as conspiracy

0 comments

24 June 2011
Belfast Telegraph
Comment


The RUC investigation of the 1994 Loughinisland massacre was deeply flawed, the Police Ombudsman will say. But it's too easy to trot out the catch-all 'collusion', argues Alan Murray

By any objective criteria, the RUC investigation into the Loughinisland massacre was a woeful piece of police work, according to Al Hutchinson's report.

The Police Ombudsman's critique of the CID investigation into the 1994 atrocity perpetrated by the Ulster Volunteer Force highlights huge failings and inconsistencies which do beggar the question: was there collusion?

In his assessment, the former Canadian policeman cautions that "inadvertence, incompetence or even negligence or recklessness is not sufficient" to conclude that individual police officers, or a police service, conspired to effect a massacre, or to shield those who did.

His stated definition of collusion is much narrower than that applied by Judge Peter Cory, who reasoned that, where the security services were concerned, they could be considered to have acted collusively "by turning a blind eye to the wrongful acts of their servants or agents".

Most reasonable people would agree with that definition and would expect that, where an agent and his gang of paramilitaries were engaged in the type of brutal murders that the UVF's Mount Vernon crew committed, the agent or agents orchestrating the violence would be sidelined and arrested by their handlers.

But how do you eradicate a 'rogue' agent whose deeds are suspected on the basis of information from other agents involved in the same acts?

And if the agent's police handler is unsure of the 'rogue' agent's guilt, does he jettison him from the payroll and lose, in some cases perhaps, invaluable information that no other source can provide?

Generally, MI5 did not get involved in the 'dirty war', because its remit was to recruit agents who would give insight and analysis, rather than operational intelligence -- that task left to RUC Special Branch and the army's Force Research Unit (FRU).

Mark Haddock and Freddie Scappaticci worked respectively for SB and the FRU and undoubtedly were involved in either the commissioning of murders or the interrogations of -- in Scappaticci's case -- other members of the terrorist organisation he served.

Did Scappaticci enjoy directing or witnessing brutal attacks on alleged IRA informers? And did he and Haddock advise their handlers of every terrorist act they had a hand in? While not knowing the definitive answer to that, it is almost certainly: no they didn't.

Loughinisland raises suspicion that acts of omission occurred during the RUC's CID investigation, but were there "wrongful acts" (in Judge Cory's phrase) by their servants or agents? One could argue that, in the Loughinisland case, a major measure of individual and management incompetence afflicted the original investigation.

Inexplicable failures on the part of the police litter the Ombudsman's report and it isn't the first to highlight investigative shortcomings during that era.

Gathering evidence two decades ago was much less comprehensive and much less sophisticated than it is today, yet we still learn of procedural investigative failures in relation to evidence-gathering and preservation.

As in all police forces, brilliant detectives, resourceful or crafty detectives or simply diligent detectives emerge to earn the plaudits of their colleagues.

Former Chief Superintendent Derek Martindale was one such figure in the 1990s, a reason why the IRA attempted to murder him.

The senior investigating officer who conducted the Loughinisland investigation declined to meet and co-operate with Al Hutchinson's probe.

Many of the inconsistencies identified by the Police Ombudsman relate to the acquiring of samples of hair, DNA and fingerprints from suspects. The Loughinisland SIO, however, could not have personally controlled, or eliminated, such failures which may have seriously hobbled his overall evidence-gathering task.

Operation of the Home Office's enquiry computer system was "poorly managed", Hutchinson concluded, leading to investigative opportunities being missed.

Other observations by the Police Ombudsman lead to the conclusion that the Loughinisland CID investigation was poorly managed and controlled.

But does this constitute collusion? Or were failings engineered by collusive acts behind the scenes to protect informants?

Over the years, the collusion line has been trotted out to describe inexplicable failures and alleged glaring oversights in other murders, such as in the cases of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson. The 'collusion by omission' dimension was arguably determined in Nelson, but few similar determinations have been confirmed over the years.

Undoubtedly, some members of the security forces did supply security montages to members of loyalist paramilitary organisations -- the Loughlin Maginn case confirmed this.

But, given the frequency of such supposed 'collusion', loyalists hardly caused the IRA to bat an eyelid at the thought that classified information might be exploited to eliminate their senior figures. Didn't Gerry Adams himself survive one such attack?

In fact, of the 347 active republicans killed during the Troubles, just 25 (7.2%) died at the hands of loyalist paramilitaries who may or may not have had classified files -- hardly evidence of major collusion between the state and their alleged 'agents'.

Nearly 40% of republican paramilitaries who were killed died at the hands of fellow republican paramilitaries, proving that in the terrorist world, usually the devil you know is worse than the devil you don't know.

Loughinisland was a monstrous attack on innocent people -- similar to attacks on pubs carried out by loyalists, but also those perpetrated by the IRA and the INLA without security force assistance.

Questions about Loughinisland -- particularly about agent involvement or knowledge of the attack -- are unanswered because Al Hutchinson is not empowered to probe such matters, he says.

His predecessor, Baroness O'Loan, appeared to go some way to investigate this in her examination of the Raymond McCord Jr murder, where she exposed a level of security force penetration of the UVF which led to turmoil within the organisation.

Many will ask where Al Hutchinson found a barrier that stopped him from treading the same path as his predecessor.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , ,


The Loughinisland Report - Role of Special Branch notable by absence after 5-year probe

0 comments

23 June 2011
The Irish News
Barry McCaffrey


If the police ombudsman was accused of a reluctance to grapple with the issue of collusion when examining the McGurk's Bar atrocity, his report on Loughinisland is also notable for the absence of another crucial piece of the picture: the role of Special Branch both before and after the massacre.

Al Hutchinson states that he studied all "available intelligence" connected to the killings but important intelligence-related aspects of the case are not mentioned in the report, raising questions over how deep his investigation went in this case and, again, drawing attention to possible conflicts within his own office.

One example is sightings of the killers' car in the south Down area in the weeks before the attack - clearly the domain of Special Branch, clearly a critical avenue for Mr Hutchinson to explore.

Yet there is no reference to this, the context of the sighting, whether or how the information about it was dis- seminated within police circles, and whether it provided leads for the investigation.

Also, more than 10 years ago police told the families that they had recovered a hair follicle on one of the killers' balaclavas.

The relatives were assured that detectives would be able to bring the killers to justice if just one bead of sweat was found from the balaclavas and boiler suits recovered.

But despite the hair follicle appearing to be one of the most important forensic lines of inquiry there is no mention of it anywhere in the ombudsman's findings.

The 56-page report - surprisingly only 26 pages of which are devoted to a five-year-long investigation - provides no clarity on the police ombudsman's relationship with Special Branch and the level of access he has achieved into it during this investigation: a pronounced contrast to the work of Nuala O'Loan on Omagh and the Mount Vernon UVF, which majored on the role of Special Branch in murders in which it was alleged that infor- mers were protected from prosecution.

Omagh and the Mount Vernon cases spanned the period of 1993-1998 and the police ombudsman found that Special Branch activities in that era protected killers.

Loughinisland occurred within the same timescale - June 1994 - yet still the role, or lack of role, of Special Branch remains unexplored anywhere in this investigation.

What is public knowledge, although unacknowledged in the Loughinisland report, is that:

- by 1994 Special Branch's 800 officers had heavily penetrated both loyalist and republican groups, including the UVF in east Belfast

- the Loughinisland attack was mounted by the east Belfast UVF

- in the Omagh and Mount Vernon cases and the murders of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, Special Branch withheld information from the CID murder investigations

The apparent removal of this dimension from the Hutchinson approach is understood to have caused a deep split within the police ombudsman's office - referred to recently by a Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) report into the effectiveness of the organisation.

The Loughinisland investigation, in particular, has been known to be a source of anxiety internally.

It also ties in with broader developments in investigations into the past: the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry reported back four weeks ago and the word "collusion" was not mentioned, allowing Secretary of State Owen Paterson to say that it therefore had not happened.

There have also been protests from nationalists at the transfer of NIO personnel into senior positions within key agencies within the criminal justice system following the devolution of justice powers last year.

So where does all this leave the relatives of the six men who died in The Heights bar 17 years ago and who went to the police ombudsman's office back in 2006 as their last hope for answers?

One of the key issues they wanted addressed was: "The suspicion that collusion pervaded the circumstances of the attack ... and the subsequent police investigation".

Tomorrow a political row is likely to play out on what turned out to be the focus of the report: the actual investigation by CID and Mr Hutchinson's conclusions that it lacked leadership and commitment and failed to properly investigate all available lines of inquiry to bring the killers to justice.

But can anyone be satisfied with Mr Hutchinson's final verdict on the subject of collusion in Loughinisland and his certainty that it didn't happen in this case?
Continue Reading... Labels: , , ,


Cables 'have only scratched surface'

0 comments

6 June 2011
Belfast Telegraph
JOHN MULGREW


OVER the past week the Belfast Telegraph exclusively revealed a raft of sensational insights regarding Northern Ireland's political system from thousands of secret US cables from the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

Journalists from both the Belfast Telegraph and Irish Independent spent hundreds of hours trawling through more than 7,000 A4 pages amounting to 2.4m words in a three-month investigation uncovering an unprecedented analysis into Northern Ireland's relationship with the US in the 21st century.

Among the many shocking revelations, it was revealed that the DUP and Sinn Fein were engaged in private talks almost three years before their power-sharing agreement. It was also revealed that the British and Irish governments had plans to crash Stormont and reintroduce direct rule if a deal on policing was not agreed.

The cables showed that the US still viewed Northern Ireland as a security issue and were keeping a close eye on proceedings with senior US officials shown time-lapse footage of the murder of two soldiers at Massereene barracks only hours after it happened.

Many of Northern Ireland and the Republic's key political figures also faced a harsh critique from senior US officials and fellow politicians. SDLP leader Margaret Ritchie received an embarrassing snub by a member of the American Consul in Belfast, branded as "stilted, wooden... with an unpleasant speaking voice".

Peter Robinson's ability as First Minister was also brought into question after cables revealed that former Secretary of State Shaun Woodward had described him as "hanging on by a thread".

In the Republic, it was revealed that Bertie Ahern was "certain" that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness had advance knowledge of the Northern Bank raid in 2004. Mr Adams was also labelled as "absurd" and "disingenuous" by a top diplomat based in Ireland.

Among the cables, it emerged the former Taoiseach had considered overturning a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement by reasserting the Republic's constitutional claim on Northern Ireland after frustration regarding the DUP's refusal to join Sinn Fein in a power-sharing government.

In a separate cable, it was revealed Mr Ahern also told US diplomats that "everyone knows" the UK was involved in the murder of Pat Finucane in 1989.

Despite the significance of the reports it's thought they have only scratched the surface, described by one Queen's University professor as "only one part of the puzzle".
Continue Reading... Labels: , ,


UK role in Finucane murder 'well known': Ahern

0 comments

3 June 2011
Belfast Telegraph
ADRIAN RUTHERFORD


FORMER Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told US diplomats that "everyone knows" the UK was involved in the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane, according to a leaked embassy cable.

The Catholic human rights lawyer was shot dead in one of the most controversial killings of the Troubles, amid allegations that the security forces colluded with the loyalist gang which carried out the 1989 murder.

A decision on whether a public inquiry will be held into the case will be announced by the British government later this year.

Mr Ahern's comments are reported in a cable written by James Kenny, the former US Ambassador to Ireland, in June 2005.

It followed a briefing to the former Taoiseach by Mitchell Reiss, the US Special Envoy to Northern Ireland. According to the "confidential" document, Mr Ahern called for the UK to provide evidence "acknowledging its involvement in Finucane's murder". He said the Irish government wanted to know "how high in the UK government collusion went".

Mr Ahern reportedly said that if the UK were to provide the information, it would only grab the headlines for a few hours because "everyone knows the UK was involved".
Continue Reading... Labels: , ,


Inquiry findings continue cover-up of 1999 Rosemary Nelson assassination

0 comments

2 June 2011
Steve James
World Socialist


The findings of the official inquiry into the murder of lawyer Rosemary Nelson, delivered after a six-year investigation, continue the cover-up by the British and Northern Ireland state apparatus.

Nelson, a prominent lawyer, was demonised by Ulster loyalists, threatened and assaulted by police and finally assassinated in a car bomb attack on 15 March 1999.

According to the inquiry panel led by Sir Michael Morland, a retired British high court judge, there is “no evidence of any act by or within any of the state agencies we have examined” that “directly facilitated Rosemary Nelson’s murder.”

Morland’s team concede, however, that “we cannot exclude the possibility of a rogue member or members of the RUC [the Royal Ulster Constabulary] or the Army in some way assisting the murderers to target Rosemary Nelson”.

The panel accept that Nelson was publicly abused and assaulted by the RUC and that intelligence information about her was leaked. They conclude that “the state failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson”.

It then claims that the investigation into the killing, itself the subject of much controversy, was conducted with “due diligence.”

The conclusions were seized upon by the British government to claim that this proved there was no “collusion” between the British government and Nelson’s killers. Speaking in Westminster, Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson claimed that “those who are looking for evidence that the state conspired in or planned the death of Rosemary Nelson will not find it in this report.”

The press repeated the “no collusion” headline, buried the story under news of the visits by the British Queen and Barack Obama to Ireland and moved quickly on. Few commentators appear to have even taken the time to read the 505-page document.

In fact, the report provides ample evidence of collusion, as defined by Peter Cory, a Canadian judge hired by the British government in 2001 to assist in reviving the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which laid the basis for power sharing in Northern Ireland. Cory stated, to the British government’s intense irritation, that collusion should be defined broadly enough to include the systematic omission of elementary security measures. Cory’s 2004 report into collusion led to the Nelson inquiry along with similar inquiries into a number of other high profile murders arising from Britain’s three-decade “dirty war” in Northern Ireland.

Rosemary Nelson built a career as a working solicitor in the town of Lurgan, Northern Ireland, primarily dealing with domestic cases. She had an office in the town’s high street, offered her services to both Protestant and Catholics, was popular locally, and, was prior to 1993, on good terms with the local RUC.

She attracted RUC and loyalist hatred by providing legal representation in a number of prominent cases. Firstly, she was hired by Colin Duffy, thought to be member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, and successfully quashed Duffy’s conviction for the murder of John Lyness, a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

For the crime of providing legal advice to a republican, Nelson herself became a target. A note was left on her car windscreen stating, “We can get you any time”.

Nelson also worked for the family of Robert Hamill, a 25-year-old Catholic man who was beaten to death in the centre of nearby Portadown in 1997. Hamill was killed by a group of Protestant youths while members of the RUC sitting in a Land Rover looked on. This case is also the subject of an ongoing inquiry.

The report notes, “Her work in this case would undoubtedly have generated hostility towards her among extreme Loyalists, particularly in Portadown. And, because she was making serious and public criticisms of the RUC’s role in Robert Hamill’s death and of the subsequent investigation, we believe that it would have contributed to the antagonism felt towards her by some RUC officers.”

During the late 1990s, Portadown was also the centre of a tense and protracted conflict over Orange and loyalist marches along the Garvaghy Road, past a Catholic and nationalist area in the town. At their peak, the Drumcree protests involved thousands of Ulster unionists, loyalists and Orange Order supporters. Nelson offered legal advice to the Garvaghy Road Residents’ Committee, which opposed the marches. During one residents’ protest Nelson was assaulted and verbally abused by RUC members, suffered severe bruising and was badly shaken up.

A number of loyalist paramilitary groups emerged around the Drumcree protests. One of them, the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) and its military wing, the Red Hand Defenders, is suspected of killing Nelson.

Nelson became prominently involved in efforts to expose state collusion in the 1989 murder of lawyer Pat Finucane and called for the reform of the RUC. Concerns were frequently raised over her security and that of other lawyers tackling politically sensitive cases in Northern Ireland. Nelson was at various times supported by the Irish government, a special rapporteur from the United Nations, Amnesty International and leading legal figures in Britain, Ireland and the United States. In her last recorded words she sought to draw parallels between the killing of London teenager Stephen Lawrence by racist thugs, and the murder of Robert Hamill.

The report provides repeated examples of police describing Nelson in the foulest terms to both loyalists and republicans arrested and held in one of Northern Ireland’s three notorious holding centres. One man reported a police officer threatening, “Tell Rosemary she’s going to die too.”

In 2003, loyalist Trevor McKeown told the Murder Inquiry Team investigating Nelson’s death that in 1998 police asked him repeatedly, referring to Nelson, “Would you shoot her Trevor, would you?” Morland’s team examined RUC Special Branch electronic records revealing that SB considered Nelson a “dedicated republican,” a view shared by the loyalist paramilitaries. The British intelligence services considered, but decided against, electronically bugging a house owned by Nelson and rented to Colin Duffy as a means to gather information on Duffy.

In early 1999 the RUC had acquired clear information that loyalist groups in Portadown, “intend to attack a number of unknown Catholic targets within the Mid Ulster area.” Surveillance and sources further identified two bombs, “probably bigger than blast bombs,” moved into the area by loyalist groups. Morland’s team note that this, along with a series of loyalist meetings may have been the “genesis of the plot to murder Rosemary Nelson.”

None of this led the RUC to offer any specific warning to Nelson or offer enhanced security, although there had been some general written exchanges characterised by mutual mistrust.

Nelson was killed by a car bomb outside her house on March 15 1999. She did not die instantly, but, grievously wounded, clung to life for several hours. She died in the BMW, which she and her family had driven home the previous evening from a weekend caravan break. The bomb was therefore planted sometime between the Nelson party’s return early evening and the following morning.

Part B of the report deals with the murder investigation, tensions between the agencies involved and seeks to explain military movements around the time of the bombing. In their drive to whitewash state institutions a pattern emerges. The inquiry team systematically adopt the most benign interpretation of events. They repeatedly assert that no ill intention towards Nelson should be implied from this or that inexplicable or downright sinister event.

Nevertheless sufficient information is provided to make clear that state agencies went far beyond “omission” in their responsibility for the attack. The inquiry team’s comment that participation by “rogue” forces in the murder “cannot be excluded” is intended to obscure the fact that many sections of the security forces operating in Northern Ireland in 1999 allowed the attack to be carried out.

At the time up to 13,000 troops, along with a huge security apparatus, were stationed in what remained one of the most militarised spots in the world.

Suspicions were immediately directed to the loyalist Red Hand Defenders, who claimed responsibility for the atrocity in a telephone call to the BBC. Eyewitness statements and CCTV footage identified two cars as significant, both of which were seen driving slowly around the area in the evening. One, a white Ford Fiesta, was similar to a vehicle owned by a local loyalist and Royal Irish Regiment member. Another, a blue Vauxhall Nova, was similar to a vehicle seen previously outside the home of a Belfast loyalist bomb maker.

The report glosses over the glee with which news of the murder was greeted by members of the RUC, Royal Irish Regiment and the British Army. Reports collated in 1999 by the Pat Finucane Centre for Human Rights and Social Change (PFC) refer to gloating and smirking from soldiers and police sent to guard the crime scene. The inquiry team refer only to “one or two tasteless remarks”.

The PFC also gathered statements detailing vehicle checkpoints manned by both British and Royal Irish Regiment soldiers. They reported army Land Rovers speeding around the area, helicopters hovering very low for hours on end, dropping off troops and using infra-red search lights as if looking for something or someone. Sightings of RUC men in boiler suits were also reported.

It was apparent that security forces had been saturating the area and skies around Nelson’s house in Ashford Grange and the neighbouring and predominantly Catholic Kilwilkie estate. How could a car bomb be delivered in such conditions unless there was collusion?

The Murder Inquiry Team, initially led by the RUC but quickly handed over to Colin Port, a Deputy Chief Constable from Norfolk, England, viewed collusion to be a major line of inquiry. Large numbers of military personnel were interviewed. It emerged that at least two security operations were in place over the weekend, as well as police riot control directed against local youth in Kilwilkie.

“Operation Improvise” was described by the report as a “surge” used from time to time to control the area, involving large numbers of troops and a number of vehicle check points. Other movements over the weekend were claimed to be directed against small bombs found around the Kilwilkie estate.

“Operation Fagotto” was a surveillance operation against a local republican. Six RUC Special Branch cars were driving around Kilwilkie estate during the evening of March 14. A car driven by “Officer K”—many of those giving evidence to the inquiry did so on condition of anonymity—passed by Ashford Grange around 22.00 hours and drove around it again at 23.45.

Even more serious issues are raised by “Operation Shubr”, long term surveillance of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF), launched in April 1998, directed particularly against LVF leader Mark Fulton. Fulton assumed leadership of the LVF following then leader Billy Wright’s assassination in December 1997.

Wright’s killing removed a significant loyalist opponent of the Good Friday Agreement from the scene and was itself the subject of a collusion inquiry. Reporting in September 2010, the Wright hearings found only negligence in the circumstances whereby Irish National Liberation Army prisoners were able to shoot Wright in the high-security Maze prison. Wright’s father noted in response, “Having considered the factual findings, it looks like collusion, it sounds like collusion and in my mind amounts to firm and final proof of collusion by state agencies in acts and omissions culminating in Billy Wright's death.”

The existence of Operation Shubr appears to have been concealed from the Murder Inquiry Team (MIT) for years and was only unearthed by Morland’s inquiry team. Yet the report notes that “under the codename Operation Shubr, surveillance had been carried out, both before and after the murder of Rosemary Nelson, on those regarded by the MIT as the principal murder suspects.”

Information from Shubr revealed that key suspects in the bombing were observed travelling to Belfast on February 25, attending a meeting in Belfast on March 4 and 5. Remarkably, surveillance stopped a few days before the bombing and started again on March 19.

The inquiry team comment, without justification, that they “are satisfied that the absence of any Shubr operation in the days immediately before Rosemary Nelson’s murder has no sinister connotation.”

The report documents repeated disputes between Colin Port and Special Branch’s leadership over the extent to which intelligence was passed on. Other items which the inquiry report as having been withheld include

  • A 1997 report of Mark Fulton testing an under-vehicle car bomb (Fulton committed suicide in prison in 2002).
  • A March 1999 report that LVF members intended to attack Nelson’s client Colin Duffy.
  • A report from the same month that the Ulster Freedom Fighters (another loyalist paramilitary outfit) had mislaid one car bomb.
  • A warning that Portadown members of the Royal Irish Regiment are warning the Red Hand Defenders when RUC raids are in their area.
  • Details of the public phone box from which the Red Hand Defenders called the BBC to claim responsibility for the attack.

The inquiry merely notes that the decision to withhold such information from the Murder Inquiry Team is “overcautious” or “incomprehensible” or, in the case of the public phone box “to protect a source.” Further disputes emerged over the MIT’s request to access telephone record of calls made shortly after the attack to Lurgan RUC police station.

The same approach is taken by the inquiry into numerous British Army helicopter flights over the area on March 13 and 14, particularly one flight on the evening of March 14 by an aircraft equipped for night flying and spotting the existence of which was denied until a year after the attack. The flight took place between 2300 and 0000 hours. The aircraft landed briefly in Portadown to pick up a Royal Irish Regiment colour sergeant and flew over Kilwilkie and Ashford Grange.

The inquiry notes that “no coherent explanation was put forward as to why the helicopter was re-tasked, what information was gathered by it and to whom such information was passed.” But Morland’s team simply concludes that “it appears to us that the presence of a helicopter at or near the scene would have been of no practical assistance to those engaged in the murder.”
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , ,


Full public murder of inquiry into Pat Finucane

0 comments

13 May 2011
The Irish News
Allison Morris


The British government is to announce within weeks plans to hold a full public inquiry into the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane.

The Irish News understands that a decision has been made at the highest level that an extensive inquiry should be allowed into the 1989 killing, although the exact terms of reference have yet to be established.

It comes seven years after former secretary of state Paul Murphy announced his intention to hold a probe under the controversial Inquiries Act, a move rejected by the Finucane family.

The legislation would have allowed some evidence to be withheld from the public.

Secretary of State Owen Paterson had been due to announce whether he would agree to a full public inquiry in January, saying he would be considering a number of public interest matters including potential cost.

He delayed that decision to allow for further consultation and to avoid any politically damaging announcements ahead of last week's elections.

Senior security figures are believed to have vehemently opposed any plans for a wide-ranging public probe because of the sheer level of security-force collusion involved in the murder.

Mr Finucane was gunned down in front of his wife and three children as he ate Sunday lunch in his north Belfast home.

His family have campaigned tirelessly for a fully independent investigation into the murder by an informer-ridden loyalist gang.

Among those expected to be called to give evidence to an inquiry would be a number of former chief constables including Ronnie Flanagan, who was head of Special Branch when loyalist agents linked to the killing were working for police.

Former Tory minister Douglas Hogg, who claimed in parliament there were solicitors "unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA", is also expected to be called.

Mr Hogg, then a Home Office minister, was given private security briefings by senior mem- bers of the RUC during his time in Margaret Thatcher's government and could be questioned for the first time on the content of those briefings.

Members of the Stevens team who investigated state collusion with loyalist murder gangs would also be key witnesses for the inquiry.

Lord Stevens stated publicly in 2003 that security force members had colluded in the solicitor's murder and that Mr Finucane's life could have been saved.

In 2007 the director of public prosecutions said none of the security force members identified by Stevens as having been involved in collusion would face charges.

However, an inquiry panel could recommend prosecutions and for files to be re-examined by the DPP.

The news comes ahead of the publication on May 23 of the findings of an inquiry into the loyalist murder of solicitor Rosemary Nelson on May 23.

TIMELINE

Autumn 1987: British army agent Brian Nelson begins supplying army intelligence with possible UDA targets

November 1988: Criminal charges are dropped against Patrick McGeown, accused of helping to organise the March 1988 killing of two army corporals. Pat Finucane is Mr McGeown's lawyer

January 1989: Home Office minister Douglas Hogg claims in the Commons that there are solicitors in the north who are "unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA"

February 1989: Mr Finucane is shot dead in his Belfast home

September 1989: Sir John Stevens, head of the Metropolitan Police, begins to investigate breaches of security by the security forces

January 1990: The Stevens team identify Brian Nelson as a key suspect and plan to arrest him and others in a dawn raid. Officers return to their secure investigation HQ hours before the planned arrests to find a fire raging. It destroys many of their files

January 1992: UDA intelligence officer and former soldier Brian Nelson, being tried on five counts of conspiracy to murder, is revealed as an army agent who tipped off his handlers about a plan to kill Mr Finucane. He is jailed for 10 years

April 1993: Second Stevens inquiry begins after DPP asks for further probe of matters raised in first inquiry

April 1999: Third inquiry launched into the allegations surrounding Mr Finucane's death

June 1999: RUC Special Branch agent and loyalist quartermaster William Stobie is charged with the murder

November 2001: After admitting having supplied the weapons used, the case against Stobie collapses

December 2001: Stobie is shot dead

April 2002: Retired Canadian judge Peter Cory is appointed by the British government to examine six murders, including Mr Finucane's, where there were allegations of security force collusion

April 2003: Stevens publicly confirms that security force members colluded in the solicitor's murder. The Finucane family reiterates its call for a full, independent, public inquiry

May 2003: Loyalist Ken Barrett is arrested and charged with the murder

April 2004: Judge Cory concludes there is enough evidence of collusion to warrant a public inquiry but Britain rushes through legislation giving ministers power to block evidence. Secretary of State Paul Murphy later announces his intention to hold an inquiry under the new Inquiries Act

September 2004: Barret pleads guilty to murdering Mr Finucane

June 2007: DPP announces that none of the security force members identified by Stevens will face charges

November 2010: Secretary of state Owen Paterson meets the Finucane family and says he will consider public interest matters including potential cost before deciding on an inquiry.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , ,


FINUCANE FAMILY URGE INQUIRY AMID GOVERNMENT TALKS

0 comments

FINUCANE FAMILY URGE INQUIRY AMID GOVERNMENT TALKS
DETAILS OF FINUCANE CASE LEAKED OVER YEARS
FINUCANE CASE BECAME TOUCHSTONE FOR COLLUSION CLAIMS
Steven McCaffery, Press Association
11 January 2011
Press Association National Newswire



The family of murdered solicitor Pat Finucane have repeated their call for a fully independent inquiry into the case after it was confirmed they are in talks with the Government.

Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson said he had extended a consultation on the case by two months to facilitate the discussions, but the surprise announcement followed years of deadlock over one of the most controversial killings of the Northern Ireland Troubles.

The Army, police and intelligence service have been implicated in the 1989 murder, which was carried out by loyalist paramilitaries who doubled as security force agents.

The Finucane family rejected efforts by the previous Labour government to conduct an investigation under the 2005 Inquiries Act and claimed it gave ministers undue influence over the outcome.

Mr Paterson had declared an interest in resolving the Finucane case, but while many observers believed the new Government would opt to draw a line under the issue, details have now emerged of efforts to broker an inquiry acceptable to both sides.

In separate statements the Secretary of State said there had been "useful" discussions, while solicitors for the Finucane family confirmed there had been "constructive" dialogue, but both signalled that an agreed way forward had not yet been reached.

Mr Paterson said: "In my written statement of November 11, I set out a period of two months during which I would receive representations as to whether it is in the public interest that I should establish a public inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane.

"As part of this process, my officials have had a constructive meeting with representatives of the Finucane family and a further meeting will be arranged.

"In light of the fact that useful discussions are under way between the family and the Government, I have decided, with the agreement of the family, to extend the period during which I will receive representations by two months."

Mr Paterson said he will then consider if it is in the public interest to hold an inquiry into Mr Finucane's murder.

Sections of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries had labelled the Catholic solicitor an IRA member. The allegation has been denied by the Finucane family, who have said the police and Army wrongly associated the lawyer with the alleged crimes of his clients.

In a statement the family's lawyers, Madden & Finucane, said further discussions were needed if their goal of an independent inquiry was to be reached.

"The Finucane family have campaigned for 21 years for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Pat," they said.

"The essence of a proper inquiry is independence.

"The family's legal team, led by Peter Madden of Madden & Finucane, met with the NIO (Northern Ireland Office) legal team in London in April last year and the discussions then were worthwhile.

"However, due to the pending general election at that time, a further meeting was postponed.

"The Madden & Finucane legal team met the Secretary of State's advisers last Thursday, January 6, and again the discussions were constructive."

Mr Madden, a former friend and colleague of the murdered solicitor, said: "Although these were constructive and useful meetings, the fact remains that the independence of a tribunal is fundamental.

"It is hoped that the family's concerns will be addressed and that a mechanism will be established which would result in a public judicial inquiry fully independent, which will have the support of the Finucane family, and all those who have supported the family in their long campaign."

Members of the loyalist Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name for the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), shot the solicitor 14 times in front of his wife and three children as they ate dinner at their north Belfast home in February 1989.

But security forces are accused of inciting the killers and using agents to carry out the murder, before covering their tracks.

Sinn Fein said government made a commitment in 2004 to hold an inquiry and said the family deserved "truth and justice". But the DUP objected to what they said could be a replay of the costly Saville Inquiry into the British Army's Bloody Sunday shootings in Londonderry.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , ,


DETAILS OF FINUCANE CASE LEAKED OVER YEARS

0 comments

DETAILS OF FINUCANE CASE LEAKED OVER YEARS
Steven McCaffery, Press Association
11 January 2011
Press Association National Newswire


No other case from the decades of violence in Northern Ireland has caused the level of controversy sparked by the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane.

The State is implicated in planning the 1989 killing, carrying it out and covering it up ever since.

But over the years, more and more damaging details have leaked out:

:: In the mid 1980s as John Stalker, former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, probed allegations of a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) "shoot-to-kill" policy against republican suspects, he said he was reprimanded by an RUC sergeant for speaking to Mr Finucane outside a court. Mr Stalker was told: "Any man who represents IRA men is worse than an IRA man."

:: In January 1989 Conservative Minister Douglas Hogg told the Commons: "I have to state as a fact, but with great regret, that there are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA." He had been briefed by senior RUC officers prior to making the remarks. The SDLP's Seamus Mallon immediately called on Mr Hogg to withdraw the comments, and said: "I have no doubt that there are lawyers walking the streets or driving on the roads of the north of Ireland who have become targets for assassins' bullets as a result of the statement that has been made tonight." Mr Finucane was shot the following month. Lord Stevens, former Metropolitan Police chief who examined the case, subsequently found that the minister had been "compromised".

:: In the years that followed it would emerge that four security force agents were linked to the Finucane killing. But it would take decades of pressure from the Finucane family, human rights groups, the United Nations, plus media probes, before further movement was secured.

:: In 1992 the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association's (UDA) head of intelligence Brian Nelson stood trial for a catalogue of murders. The former soldier from Belfast's Shankill Road was an army intelligence agent, channelling information to loyalists to help direct their violence. He has also been linked to arms shipments from South Africa to Northern Ireland, with a quantity reaching the hands of loyalist paramilitaries. Nelson was overseen by the army's secret Force Research Unit (FRU). His handlers claimed he helped save innocent lives. And after striking a deal over his conviction, he was never asked to give evidence on his UDA colleagues and served less than six years, before being freed and given a new identity. He died in 2003. As well as providing a photograph of Pat Finucane to the killers, he is said to have driven a gunman to the solicitor's house days before the murder.

:: In 1999 fresh revelations over the Finucane case led to an announcement that the Stevens' team of investigators, who had already carried out two probes into allegations of security force wrongdoing in Northern Ireland, was to return to re-examine the Finucane case. This surprised observers since the government had dismissed earlier UN calls for an investigation by claiming Mr Stevens had already looked at the case during his first two forays into Northern Ireland. But launching his probe, Mr Stevens said: "At no time in Stevens II or the original Stevens I inquiry, did I investigate the murder of Patrick Finucane."

:: In June of the same year the Stevens team charged William Stobie with aiding and abetting in the murder of Mr Finucane. He was a UDA quartermaster and an agent of RUC Special Branch. He said that, before the Finucane murder, he had warned police that gunmen had approached him for weapons and were en route to an attack. In November 2001 the case against Mr Stobie collapsed. He was murdered by loyalists outside his house three weeks later.

:: Claims also emerged that RUC officers had urged so-called UDA "Brigadier" Tommy Lyttle, who was also a Special Branch informant, to use his high-ranking role in the paramilitaries to have Pat Finucane killed.

:: In 2002 the BBC Panorama programme screened footage of UDA member, and police informant, Ken Barrett admitting to killing Mr Finucane. He had confessed to police as early as 1991, but officers at the time claimed their efforts to pursue the matter were blocked by police Special Branch. Barrett claimed he had been encouraged to kill the solicitor by a senior RUC officer. He was handed a life sentence for the murder in 2004, but was freed within three years under the early release scheme for paramilitaries contained in the Good Friday Agreement peace deal of 1998.

:: Wider allegations of security force collusion with paramilitaries became a key political issue. The nationalist SDLP and Sinn Fein pressed the government for action. Embarrassing revelations over the Finucane case from the London-based British-Irish Rights Watch and UN Special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy were compounded by the loyalist murder in 1999 of Catholic lawyer Rosemary Nelson, a solicitor who had also claimed to have been threatened by police for representing IRA suspects.

:: During political talks on securing power-sharing government between unionists and republicans in Northern Ireland, the British and Irish governments agreed to inquiries into six infamous cases where security force collusion with the killers was alleged. Retired Canadian judge Peter Cory was asked to carry out an initial review of the cases. In April 2004 his devastating report on the Finucane murder was released. He found that security forces knew of three plots to kill Mr Finucane but failed to warn him. The army, RUC Special Branch and MI5 were said to have known of UDA plots in 1981, 1985 and seven weeks before he was murdered in 1989. It was said security forces chose not to warn Mr Finucane for fear of jeopardising the life of their undercover agent, Brian Nelson.

:: December 2010 saw an intriguing reference to the Finucane murder in US diplomatic cables from 2005 released by WikiLeaks. It was claimed that MI5 had offered to disclose files relating to the Finucane killing if the probe was conducted under the 2005 Inquiries Act. Amnesty International said it was of concern that files on the solicitor's murder appeared to exist, but had not yet been made public. The cables said the Irish premier at the time, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, said "everyone knows the UK was involved" in the Finucane murder. It was also claimed that US diplomats feared "elements of the security-legal establishments" in Britain, outside MI5, were working hard to prevent an inquiry.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Murder of lawyer that fuelled distrust and suspicions of collusion

0 comments

The US embassy cables Ireland:
Pat Finucane: Murder of lawyer that fuelled distrust and suspicions of collusion
Owen Bowcott
13 December 2010
The Guardian


Pat Finucane, a prominent civil rights and criminal defence lawyer, was eating supper with his wife and three children, when masked, loyalist gunmen smashed their way into his north Belfast home and shot him dead.

Members of the outlawed Ulster Freedom Fighters broke down the front door with sledgehammers and fired 14 shots from a .38 revolver and a 9mm Browning automatic pistol.

All of the rounds struck Finucane. The UFF claimed they had killed him because he was a high-ranking officer in the IRA. Police at his inquest said there was no evidence to support that assertion.

The attack took place on Sunday, 12 February 1989. More than 20 years later the political consequences of one of the most controversial killings of Northern Ireland's Troubles are still reverberating.

British military intelligence's disputed role in the murder has been the subject of successive police inquiries, several of which remain secret.

Finucane's death fuelled suspicions of collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries while fomenting distrust between Dublin and London. Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Metropolitan police commissioner who conducted three inquiries into allegations of collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, reached an unequivocal judgment in 2003.

"I conclude there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them," he wrote of the murder of Finucane and Brian Lambert, a Protestant mistakenly targeted in 1987.Finucane, 38 at the time of his murder, had been at the forefront of arguing that suspects detained under anti-terror legislation were being held in conditions that violated their human rights.

As a solicitor, Finucane had represented loyalists and republicans.

His brother John was an IRA member who had been killed on active service in a car crash in the Falls Road, Belfast, in 1972. Another brother successfully contested attempts to extradite him to Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic; a third brother was the fiance of Mairead Farrell, one of the IRA trio shot dead by the SAS in Gibraltar in 1988.

The Finucane family has always denied, however, that Pat was involved with the Provisionals.

Three weeks before the shooting, Douglas Hogg, then a junior Home Office minister, told the House of Commons that certain solicitors in Northern Ireland were "unduly sympathetic" to the IRA. Around the same time an RUC officer was reported to have told a client: "You will not be having Mr Finucane as a solicitor much longer."

The man responsible at the time for assembling information about those selected as targets for UFF attacks was Brian Nelson, a former soldier who, it emerged, was an agent for British military intelligence.

Nelson was subsequently convicted of five counts of conspiracy to murder - but not in connection with Finucane's death. Excerpts from his diary, broadcast by BBC Panorama in 1992, suggested he had warned his army handlers in the Force Research Unit (FRU) that Finucane was being targeted.

When Brigadier Gordon Kerr, who was in charge of the FRU, gave evidence at the trial of Nelson, he said the army unit's purpose was to "save life . . . [and] prevent attacks taking place".

He insisted that Nelson's actions had saved numerous lives.

Stevens faced major obstacles when he started investigating allegations of collusion in 1999. At one stage, his offices, inside a secure police compound, mysteriously burnt down. Not all of Stevens's report have been published.

In a 2003 summary of his findings, Stevens was clear. "Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder.

"The failure to keep records or the existence of contradictory accounts can often be perceived as evidence of concealment or malpractice. It limits the opportunity to rebut serious allegations. The absence of accountability allows the acts or omissions of individuals to go undetected. The withholding of information impedes the prevention of crime and the arrest of suspects. The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings.

"My three inquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes.

"Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from senior investigating officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved."

William Stobie, a former UDA quartermaster and a police informant, later revealed that he had told his RUC handlers when a UFF commander asked him to get guns for a "job" on a "top Provie".

He said he was amazed officers still did nothing when he alerted them again shortly before the killing. Stobie was later shot dead by, it is thought, loyalist colleagues extracting revenge for his betrayal.

The US diplomatic cables passed to WikiLeaks make clear the Irish government believed the murder left an enduring legacy of distrust between Britain and the broader nationalist community.

James Kenny, the then US ambassador to Dublin, outlined the thinking of the former Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern in a cable from July 2004.

The ambassador wrote: "Ahern said it is not a republican, but a nationalist, issue. Because there is such broad-based support across the nationalist community in the North for an inquiry, SF [Sinn Fein] will insist on it."

The Finucane family have been battling for decades for an independent, public inquiry. In 2001, following peace process talks at Weston Park, the government appointed a Canadian judge, Peter Cory, to investigate allegations of collusion.

He recommended a public inquiry into the killing but the Finucane family - and Cory - have been opposed to it being held under the more restrictive terms of the Inquiries Act 2005.

The act empowers ministers to order that some inquiry sessions are held in private and to withhold material from the final published report. In the face of family opposition, hopes of an inquiry stalled.

Amnesty International, the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and the Belfast-based Committee for the Administration of Justice have all called for an independent public inquiry.

In 2007, the public prosecution service announced that no members of the security forces would be charged in connection with the Finucane killing. Michael Finucane, his son, described that decision as "extremely disappointing and in some cases very, very perplexing".

Only one man, Ken Barrett, a former Special Branch informer, has been convicted of killing Finucane. Barrett, 44, was jailed for 22 years in 2004 but released shortly afterwards under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. He is believed to be living at a secret location in England.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , , , ,


The family can't move on until the truth is told

0 comments

The family can't move on until the truth is told
23 July 2010
Belfast Telegraph


The lucid memory of that horrific episode, however, lives with him every day, emboldening a relentless, painstaking search for the truth about who was really behind it.

John Finucane, now an established Belfast solicitor himself, is certain that the security forces colluded with loyalists for an assassination he believes was condoned -- even sanctioned -- by the Government.

An outrageous suggestion some might think, but an hour in the company of this 30-year-old criminal lawyer and human rights activist may well cloud the most cynical minds in doubt.

"Through the very nature of his work in those days, my father was proving to be a thorn in the establishment's side," John says.

"He was taking on the British establishment -- with their own laws, through their own courts. He was good at it too, and I don't think they liked that. Quite simply, they killed him because he was effective at his job."

He adds: "My father was looking into unlawful detentions and killings by the security forces. He was one of a select few prepared to do the work."

That work was ended, abruptly and mercilessly, when Pat Finucane, then 39, was shot 14 times by loyalist paramilitary Ken Barrett and another man. Barrett, a UDA informer, finally pleaded guilty to the murder in 2004.

Pat Finucane had been representing well known IRA man Pat 'Beag' McGeown, a suspect in the notorious, brutal and all-too-public murders of two Army corporals in Andersonstown in March 1988. Pictures of Mr Finucane outside Belfast's Crumlin Road Courthouse with his client appeared in the Press. The UDA/UFF said they killed him because he was an "IRA officer" -- although no evidence has ever emerged to support this claim.

Pat Finucane did, however, have well established republican roots. Three brothers -- John, Dermot and Seamus -- were in the Provisional IRA. John was killed 'on active service' in 1972, Dermot was one of the 38 Maze escapees in 1983 and Seamus was a Provo colleague of Bobby Sands (later a client of Pat's); the pair were arrested attempting to destroy a Belfast property store in 1976.

Pat Finucane's son does not believe his father was merely paying for the sins of his siblings; his representation of high-profile paramilitaries is a more plausible 'justification.'

"My father represented loyalists and republicans," he says. "As a solicitor you can't refuse a case and he didn't. He got work because he was successful in challenging the police and the Government. I believe he became a hate figure for them."

John was only eight when his father was murdered in front of him, his mother Geraldine, his brother Michael (then 17) and sister Katherine (13) .

"It was around 7pm," he remembers. "There was a loud bang at the front door and before anybody had time to react my father was killed in front of us in the kitchen.

"We were literally in the middle of our dinner. They suspected the people who did this had done it before because every shot that was fired hit my father. It was particularly brutal in nature."

In 1999, the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir John Stevens, who had already been investigating collusion allegations in Northern Ireland for a decade, launched a specific inquiry into Mr Finucane's murder.

Arising from that investigation, RUC Special Branch agent and loyalist quartermaster William Stobie was charged with supplying one of the pistols used in the murder. He admitted the offence, but denied knowing who the target was. He also argued he'd warned his handlers a shooting was imminent.

The Stobie case collapsed in November 2001; he was shot dead by loyalists outside his own home shortly afterwards.

But John's focus is not on the paramilitaries involved.

"They were merely sent out to do a job," he says. "The main question is: who sent them out, and why? Loyalists have since gone on the record to say that they were told by the RUC to target my father.

"Why did the Government feel they could get a solicitor murdered in their own jurisdiction?

"Why did they have a policy where many other people were killed?

"If this was just about the murder of my father I don't think it would have gathered as much momentum or attracted as much attention as it has. This was a policy that affected many, many people."

He adds: "We know it was Brian Nelson (the loyalist and Army double agent) who provided the intelligence and who had helped set the murder up."

Army officers interviewed by the Stevens team denied any knowledge of a high-level plot but that isn't the source of frustration for the victim's family.

"Prosecutions aren't an issue for us," John admits. "We aren't interested in anybody going to jail for this. The main focus for us is getting at the truth.

"And, firstly, that truth must be told in its entirety. Secondly, that truth must be acknowledged and accepted by the British Government. Thirdly, we must learn lessons from this.

"Until we know what really went on, we'll never be able to learn from it. We must send out a message that we will not tolerate that sort of behaviour from our Government, or from its various agencies."

John's father was killed just weeks after Home Office minister Douglas Hogg told the Commons a number of Ulster solicitors were "unduly sympathetic" to the IRA.

"Yes, and he has never admitted why he made that statement," says John. "We have since learned that he was briefed by senior members of the RUC and given that information to say. One of Stevens' reports says Hogg was compromised.

"The Stevens Report itself has never been published -- why's that?"

You get the impression John Finucane knows the answers already. All he wants is for the Government to own up to its perceived involvement. It could be a long wait; it has already been.

"For the last 20 years, the British Government have resisted, have fought every step of the way to cover up the truth," he says. "As a family, it makes us very suspicious as to what they're hiding."

The Finucane family (John's brother, Michael, is also a solicitor) have been promised an inquiry into Pat's murder -- and they will settle for nothing less.

Put simply, they want the powers-that-be to finally say: 'Yes, that's what happened . . . and we're so sorry it did'.

"My family aren't asking for an open-ended, costly inquiry," John says. "I think this could be dealt with very swiftly. But we need to deal with the past; we can't walk away from it. "

The Finucanes' quest for adequate closure has been backed by, among others, various US Presidents, the Irish Government and the European Parliament.

"My mother (now 60) has likened it to a sore or a cut -- if you don't treat it properly and just cover it up, it will fester below the surface and eventually come up, even more rotten than it was originally," says John.

"And something very rotten was going on at that time, something that caused not just my father's death, but many others."

Today, sitting in a busy cafe in Belfast city centre -- a Belfast thronged with young people who have never heard this story and, frankly, would have no interest in hearing it either -- John admits to occasionally wondering why he has persisted in his quest for the truth for so long.

"I was eight when this happened; I'm 30 now. For the vast majority of my life I haven't known anything else," he says.

Time, however, doesn't make dealing with such a "violent, traumatic and unforeseen death" any easier for a family man looking forward to the birth of his third child next week.

One of his boys is nearly the age John was on that fateful night back in 1989.

"My father was taken away from me. I feel I've missed out on an awful lot and I miss him as much now as I ever did," he says.

"You miss having your father. And the more I find out about who he was, the more I've missed not having that person in my life. That pain, that grief will always be there."

He adds: "No-one wants to spend their life having to talk about the murder of their father and why they want justice to be achieved, but it's where we are. We do want to put this behind us, but until the truth is told I really don't think that's possible."
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Omagh widower vows to fight on for damages

0 comments

19 May 2010
Belfast Telegraph


A man whose wife died in the Omagh bombing is to launch an appeal after his claim for damages against the Chief Constable and Northern Ireland Secretary was struck out. Laurence Rush said he is determined to get justice 12 years after his wife Elizabeth was murdered in the Real IRA attack.

He had taken a civil action over alleged failures in the apprehension, detection and pre-emptive arrest of the bombers. Yesterday his claim was struck out by a High Court judge, who said in a ruling that the case "did not enjoy the potential prospect of success".
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , ,


Northern Irish court deflects Omagh bomb blame

0 comments

18 May 2010
Reuters News
Ian Graham / Andras Gergely


* Court says militants alone liable for Omagh deaths
* Rejects idea police could have prevented attack

A court in Northern Ireland ruled on Tuesday that Republican militants alone were liable for deaths in the 1998 Omagh bombing, in a blow to those seeking compensation arguing police could have prevented the attack.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , ,


Kidnap victim in bid to force IRA spy accused before court

0 comments

15 April 2010
The Irish News
Barry McCaffrey


An IRA spy alleged to be the British army agent 'Stakeknife' could be forced into court by the wife of another informer who claims she suffered a nervous breakdown after being kidnapped by him.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , , ,


'Don't dig too deep' cop told

0 comments

8 April 2010
Mirror


The RUC's former deputy head of CID reveals in a new book how he believes he could have solved the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane. In Duplicity And Deception launched yesterday, now retired police officer Alan Simpson said in 2002 that he had not been told an RUC Special Branch informer was involved in the murder. And he explained how he was discouraged from digging too deeply while investigating the murder of Mr Finucane.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Former UVF brigadier questioned on killings

0 comments

9 March 2010
The Irish News
Barry McCaffrey


A former UVF 'brigadier' was last night among three men being questioned by police as part of a major investigation into loyalist murders. Rab Warnock (62) was arrested by officers from the PSNI's Serious Crime Branch (SCB) at his home on the outskirts of north Belfast yesterday morning.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , ,


'Assurances' given to victim's father

0 comments

13 January 2010
Belfast News Letter


The father of a UVF murder victim has met Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris and officers from the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) to discuss his concerns about the handing over of Operation Ballast to the PSNI.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , ,


Testimony by John Finucane

0 comments

House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Hearing - Concerns Regarding Possible Collusion in Northern Ireland: Police and Paramilitary Groups
22 October 2009
Congressional Documents and Publications
Testimony by John Finucane, Belfast, Northern Ireland - October 22, 2009

Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


PSNI takeover of HET probes is 'sinister' say families of victims

0 comments

18 December 2009
The Irish News
Maeve Connolly


The families of victims of a north Belfast UVF gang protected by Special Branch have described as a "sinister development" the PSNI decision to take over an investigation into police and loyalist paramilitary collusion.
Continue Reading... Labels: , , , , ,


 
Return to top of page Copyright © 2010 | Flash News Converted into Blogger Template by HackTutors