|
|
|
Judge Cory's Collusion Report on the murder of British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Paul Murphy MP's Statement from the Finucane family in response to 23rd September 2004
European Court of Human Rights Ruling The Troops Out Movement welcomes the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Pat Finucane on 1st July 2003. The Court found that Pat Finucane’s right to life, which is protected under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been violated in a number of ways:
The European Court of Human Rights concluded “The Court finds that the proceedings for investigating the death of Patrick Finucane failed to provide a prompt and effective investigation into the allegations of collusion by security personnel. There has consequently been a failure to comply with the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 of the Convention and there has been, in this respect, a violation of that provision”. Troops Out Movement join with Amnesty International, British Irish Rights Watch and the Committee on the Administration of Justice in calling on the British Government to take immediate action to give effect to the judgement of the Court and:
Pat Finucane’s son, Michael said “The responsibility for this matter now rests squarely with the British Government and how they will meet their obligations under the European Convention. It remains to be seen whether they will take their Convention obligations seriously now that, once again, they have been measured and found wanting. The only way that the British Government can hope to reclaim any part of its shattered reputation is by establishing a full, independent judicial public inquiry without any further delay”. We fully endorse his statement.
Thatcher’s day on stand will come – Finucane On the eve of solicitor’s 15th anniversary, we talk to his wife Geraldine Finucane The wife of murdered North Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane has said the day that former Tory PM Maggie Thatcher takes the witness stand at a full public inquiry into his killing is drawing nearer. And she says the international judge appointed by Tony Blair to look into the controversial murder has told her the British government must publish a true reflection of his findings. As pressure mounts for the truth into the notorious and brutal murder of Pat Finucane, Geraldine Finucane told the North Belfast News that nothing less than an “expansive” inquiry was needed to unveil the murky and deadly involvement of the RUC Special Branch and the British Army’s Force Research Unit (FRU) in murder. And she said the political establishment as well as the British military must take the stand at an inquiry and be called to account for their actions. “It has always been regarded that Margaret Thatcher was the top of the chain of command. An inquiry would establish that. All the people on that chain are accountable and it has always been our aim to get to the truth,” she said. “She was a hands-on prime minister and liked to know everything first hand,” said Geraldine Finucane. “She was involved in everything and where Northern Ireland was concerned – particularly with the death of her close friend Airey Neave and Lord Mountbatten – she liked to be briefed directly. She like this so she could be sure of things.” Next Thursday marks the 15th anniversary of the February 1989 death of the 39-year-old solicitor. He was gunned down by the UFF in his home in Fortwilliam as he sat with his family eating dinner. A UDA gunman pumped 14 shots into Pat Finucane in a British army-led loyalist murder campaign which peaked in the late ‘80s and 1990s. Just weeks prior to the murder Douglas Hogg, a junior minister in the Thatcher government, used parliamentary privilege to name solicitors whom he claimed were “sympathetic” to the IRA. To this day Douglas Hogg still stands by his comments. A huge number of nationalists – most of them civilians – on whom the FRU had prepared files and handed over to the death squads, were from North Belfast. Relatives of those targeted were often the innocent victims of the loyalist gunmen when they came to call. An army checkpoint set up on the Antrim Road on the night of the murder was withdrawn to let Pat Finucane’s killers through the security force cordon. Geraldine Finucane said she wanted to know “exactly what policy was carried out” at every level. That policy led to the British state murder of hundreds of its own citizens and allowed loyalist killers like South African gunrunner Brian Nelson to kill with impunity. Geraldine Finucane said any inquiry would also expose the policy of the British government at that time. As Judge Peter Cory adds his call to the long list of legal and human rights groups for a judicial probe into one of the most controversial murders of the conflict, the Finucane family say it all went right into the heart of Maggie Thatcher’s cabinet. “From the minute Pat was killed there were obvious questions to be asked. The Douglas Hogg statement had been made prior to Pat’s death and we accepted this meant more than just what was being said (by the RUC to loyalists) during interrogation in Castlereagh. There was government involvement,” she said. But she revealed that it was only gradually that the layers had been peeled off in the aftermath of her husband’s murder to reveal more details of a specific drive from the heart of the British cabinet led by Maggie Thatcher. “Everything was slow in the beginning and it was quite a long period of time before anything happened. But that gave me time to get over Pat’s murder. It allowed us to have a routine and just to settle ourselves. Then Nelson was arrested and the (Stalker) investigation came about. The momentum only then started to gather. “Then all the Non-Governmental Organisations and all the people involved were all up and running about collusion and the family just grew together. We as a family and the NGOs just grew as a family at an even pace. I always think after Rosemary Nelson was murdered, her family was just thrown into things at the deep end, but for us it became part of our lives.” Many of the world's most prestigious NGOs including Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights have issued reports on the circumstances around Pat Finucane’s murder. And other respected NGOs, especially the Committee on The Administration of Justice (CAJ) in Belfast and British Irish Rights Watch in London, agreed also of the compelling need for an independent judicial inquiry. Geraldine Finucane said she was convinced the day was coming for an inquiry, but fears that when one is eventually launched the British government will seek to have its range limited in order not to expose the heart of the truth. Another threat to the truth is the marathon and ongoing Stevens III inquiry. “There is something massive that has been hidden and the people involved do not want it to come out. There are only two names out there in the public domain such as Gordon Kerr, the head of the FRU. “There are lots of other people still in charge and running the FRU in the intelligence community, these people are still around. It’s in their interests for this not to come out at the minute.” At the moment the British have been accused of stalling tactics over its decision not to publish the Cory report citing legalities and interests of national security. That is despite the Irish government immediately publishing the Canadian judge’s findings into killings in the Republic which were blamed on Garda collusion with the IRA. “Things have been going on for far too long and it’s still continuing and the British government still won’t allow a public inquiry,” said Geraldine Finucane. “But I intend to push on. We are still intent on forcing the publication of the Cory report.” But what if the British decide to edit out the key evidence in the Cory report citing national security as the excuse? “Judge Cory has told me that if they publish and it is not representative of the report then he will tell us what was taken out. He said to me ‘I will say whether it is a reflection of what I wrote’. He has written the report avoiding all the sensitive areas.” Geraldine Finucane said she was not surprised that Peter Cory has found grounds for a public inquiry. “He is a very intelligent man of great expertise. He has worked in the Canadian Supreme Court. The evidence is what I knew about and other people, like the United Nations special rapporteur and the US Congress – they all called for an inquiry into the evidence as presented. “I thought he (Cory) should find that. He is an independent man of integrity and he was not going to be got at by anybody. Although I didn’t feel the necessity for him to be appointed, he adds to the list of eminent people who have called for an inquiry.”
Investigations feared to be British government 'stalling' For the last 15 years the British government has blocked calls for an independent inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder. For much of that period it claimed that any inquiry would prejudice investigations by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens. However, in 1999 Amnesty International commissioned three human rights barristers to ascertain whether an independent inquiry would indeed prejudice a criminal investigation. The barristers concluded that such a probe would not prejudice any criminal investigation, noting that the British government had set up a public inquiry into the killing of London teenager Stephen Lawrence while a Metropolitan Police murder investigation was ongoing. At an estimated cost of more than £12 million Sir John has conducted three investigations into allegations of security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries over the last 15 years. In 1989 the then RUC chief constable Sir Hugh Annesley first asked Sir John to investigate allegations of collusion after loyalists were found to be in possession of large numbers of security force intelligence files. In later years, as evidence of security force wrongdoing in the Finucane killing emerged, government spokesmen claimed that this wide-ranging Stevens One inquiry had also fully investigated the solicitor's murder. It only became clear much later that this was not the case. Although Stevens One was completed in May 1990, its findings were never made public. A published summary found that while there had been collusion, it had been neither "widespread nor institutionalised". Mr Finucane's murder was not mentioned. And while the Stevens One investigation said it had found no evidence of widespread collusion, it later emerged that nearly 2,000 security force files were in the hands of loyalists. Stevens One led to 47 prosecutions, and although most of these related to loyalist paramilitaries, the figure also included UDR soldiers. No RUC officer was prosecuted over the leaks. Sir John did, however, stumble across evidence that another branch of the security services had been involved with loyalist paramilitaries. In January 1990 the Stevens team arrested Brian Nelson. While Nelson was known to be a senior UDA intelligence officer, it was not until he admitted being an agent for the British army's shadowy Force Research Unit (FRU) that security force involvement in Mr Finucane's murder started to emerge. At his trial Nelson faced 35 charges, including aiding and abetting murder, but when these were drastically reduced he agreed to plead guilty. He was not convicted over the Finucane killing but was sentenced to 10 years in prison and served five. A second investigation, dubbed Stevens Two, was set up after a BBC documentary, The Dirty War, revealed how Nelson had warned his army handlers that the UDA was targeting Mr Finucane. It revealed that, far from being a 'renegade', Nelson had been actively assisted by his handlers in collating intelligence for the UDA and UVF. This came amid other allegations of collusion and the director of public prosecutions wrote to Sir Hugh suggesting that these matters again be investigated. Although Stevens Two lasted nearly three years, little is known about what new evidence, if any, was uncovered. Three reports went to the DPP but resulted in no prosecutions. The Stevens II report has never been published. Throughout this period the Finucane family and human rights groups continued to gather evidence to support an independent inquiry dealing specifically with the solicitor's murder. In 1999 a new report into the killing was presented to the governments by the London-based human rights group, British Irish Rights Watch (BIRW). While BIRW had wanted to see an inquiry as a result of its report, the document was instead passed to the RUC and the then chief constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, called Sir John back to Northern Ireland. The decision to have the murder investigation reopened, as opposed to calling an inquiry, angered the Finucane family. They insisted that they would have no contact with Sir John, branding his investigation a government "stalling tactic". There was further controversy when in April 1999 Sir John held a press conference to launch his probe and declared that neither of his first two inquiries had investigated Mr Finucane's murder. In a statement which contradicted the stated government line throughout the 1990s, he said: "At no time was I given the authority by either the chief constable of the RUC or the DPP to investigate the murder of Pat Finucane." Although Stevens Three is nearly five years old, no-one has been convicted of Mr Finucane's murder. UDA/UFF members Billy Stobie and Ken Barrett, who were also revealed to be informants for RUC Special Branch, are the only people to have been charged with the killing. But Stobie's trial collapsed when the Crown's main witness refused to give evidence. Less than a month later Stobie was shot dead by the UDA/UFF. A major development in the Finucane case came in February last year when Sir John delivered the report from his latest investigation. The report stated officially for the first time that there had been security force collusion in the murder. Although Sir John has forwarded files on 20 serving and former security force members to the DPP for possible prosecution, no-one from the DPP's office was last night available to state whether anyone was to be prosecuted. In July 2002 the British and Irish governments appointed retired Canadian judge Peter Cory to determine whether there should be independent inquiries into six murder cases involving allegations of security force collusion. At that time both governments pledged to abide by Judge Cory's findings. The Irish government published the two reports it received from Mr Cory in October last year. The British government has refused to publish any of the four reports it has received, claiming that it is studying "legal and security implications" before any publication. Judge Cory took the unusual step last month of warning that he would go public if the British government attempted to renege on its commitment to publish. "I have made noises that I considered appropriate at this time and I suppose there may come a time when I make more noise," he said.
Summary of Cory Report
Findings of Judge Cory “They (FRU) were aware that Nelson was a central player within the UDA, and that he had considerable influence in directing targeting operations. They were also aware that Nelson often played a direct and active role in reconnaissance missions. The provision of information to Nelson in these circumstances may be seen as evidence of collusive behaviour that had the potential to facilitate the deadly operations planned by the UDA.” (page 102)
From 'Focus on victims of a 30-year dirty war' Pat Finucane On February 12 1989, the solicitor Pat Finucane sat down to dinner at his Belfast home with his wife, Geraldine, and their three children. At 7.25pm a masked gunman from the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association broke down the front door. Fourteen shots were fired into Finucane's head, neck and torso, killing him instantly. Judge Cory said there was documentary proof that MI5, the army and Special Branch knew about a plot to kill Finucane before his murder. They failed to act to save him because they preferred to protect their loyalist paramilitary informers. Finucane, 39, had appeared in high-profile legal cases, defending alleged IRA or Provisional IRA members, and had represented the hunger striker Bobby Sands. He also acted for protestants. Judge Cory said Finucane was a "law-abiding citizen" who was killed because he was a solicitor. A few weeks before Finucane was murdered, the Home Office minister Douglas Hogg stated in parliament: "Some lawyers are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA." Judge Cory said statements made by the ex-chief constable of the RUC had belittled Finucane's integrity and that the police tended "to identify a solicitor with his clients". The RUC kept a file on Finucane and his alleged Republican background, and recorded his "legitimate activities" as a lawyer and supporter of human rights. Judge Cory said the police investigation into his murder was thwarted by Special Branch, which was "controlling the situation" and withheld vital information. Two agents were being protected: Brian Nelson, a key player in the UDA and an informer for the army's crack intelligence squad, the Force Research Unit, and William Stobie, a former soldier in the British army and a UDA quartermaster who turned Special Branch informer. Both are now dead. Nelson had compiled detailed index cards - known as "personality cards" - on intended UDA victims, including Finucane. Another loyalist paramilitary had told him that Finucane was "someone really big... the brains behind the provisional IRA". Judge Cory said a public inquiry would determine how much his handlers knew about the targeting of the lawyer. Stobie claimed he twice informed Special Branch about the threats to Finucane, but they did nothing. MI5 was first told about threats in 1981, but took no action on the "very real and imminent" threat because it would compromise its agent. Just two months before the murder, security services were told Finucane was a "shoot to kill" target but nothing was done. Judge Cory said a public inquiry should investigate whether British security forces gave "tacit encouragement or even active facilitation" of UDA operations and targeting of victims that led to murder. He described a "cumulative picture" of possible army, MI5 and Special Branch collusion. Nelson - whom the army knew was involved in protection rackets and planning murders - was given information by his handlers that may have helped in UDA murders. Judge Cory also raised the question of security of army weapons. One member of the Ulster Defence Regiment - "a man all too fond of alcohol, a loner" - had stolen weapons and sold them to loyalist paramilitaries. They were later used in Finucane's murder. One of the murder weapons was a 99m [sic] Browning pistol. Stobie told Special Branch that he had given the UDA paramilitary a 99m [sic] Browning pistol and the target was almost certainly Finucane. He later told one journalist he couldn't sleep a wink that night and that he was sure the murder would be foiled. He "could not believe it" when he heard Finucane was dead. Special Branch knew that, three days after the murder, Stobie had been ordered to pick up and hide a 99m [sic] Browning pistol. Judge Cory found no indication that they took steps to recover the weapon. The police were said to have a "selective bias" in which they perceived threats by Republican terrorist groups to be more dangerous and deserving of attention than those made by loyalist terrorist groups.
I'll not see Inquiry into dad's murder Pat Finucane's son Michael speaks about his Cory Report frustration In an exclusive interview in today's Andersonstown News, the son of murdered solicitor Pat Finucane says he doesn't expect to see an independent inquiry into his father's murder in his lifetime. Michael Finucane was speaking after the fall-out from Thursday's publication of the long-awaited Cory Report continued. The British government's decision to body-swerve Judge Cory's recommendation for a public inquiry into Pat Finucane's 1989 assassination has caused fury across the nationalist community and among international human rights organisations. “It has been 15 years since my father's murder. One can easily see how the British government can string out ‘judicial proceedings' for at least another 15 years – if not much longer,” said Michael Finucane. “Frankly, the reality is that I may now never see a public inquiry into my father's murder during the course of my own lifetime,” he added. Pat Finucane's son, Michael, last night told the Andersonstown News there is now a real prospect that he will never see a public inquiry ordered into his father's assassination during the course of his own lifetime. Michael Finucane's stark comments come as the full ramifications of Judge Peter Cory's four reports on state collusion with paramilitaries – along with the British government's responses – have begun to generate widespread anger in the nationalist community. Censored versions of Judge Cory's reports into the killings of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright were publicly released by the British government last Thursday – five months after they were submitted by the retired Canadian legal figure. In responding to Judge Cory's recommendation that a public inquiry should be instigated in relation to each incident, the British agreed that inquiries would be set up under the Police Act 1998 in relation to the Nelson and Hamill cases, and under the Prison Act 1953 in relation to the Wright killing. Despite concerns about the over-arching role of the Northern Ireland Office in being able to establish and regulate all aspects of inquiries under Section 44 of the Police Act, the Nelson and Hamill families have given a cautious welcome to the prospect of some movement on the cases. However, the British government's decision to body-swerve Judge Cory's recommendation of a public inquiry into Pat Finucane's assassination has caused fury across the nationalist community and among international human rights organisations. Speaking in the House of Commons last Thursday, Secretary of State Paul Murphy said that, in relation to Pat Finucane's killing, “an individual is currently being prosecuted for the murder”. “For that reason, we will set out the way ahead at the conclusion of prosecutions.” Now, however, the Andersonstown News has uncovered a formal statement last May by the former NIO Security Minister, Jane Kennedy, in which she responded to demands for a public inquiry by stating that nothing would be allowed which “cuts across judicial proceedings”. “We would have to ensure that no public inquiry cuts across judicial proceedings,” Ms Kennedy told a debate in Westminster Hall on May 14, 2003. Informed legal observers believe that this sweeping definition of “judicial proceedings” is intended to include criminal proceedings, crown court trials and – crucially – appeal court hearings. Michael Finucane, himself a solicitor, voiced serious concerns yesterday that he and his family will be forced to wait far longer than anyone believes before the British government “sets out the way ahead” in responding to Judge Cory's report on his father's murder. “The British government's position is there, on record from last year, and it has not altered appreciably following Paul Murphy's comments last week. “We don't know how many prosecutions are intended into my father's murder. “We hear that 20 or 22 files may have been, or are being, sent to the DPP in relation to this case. “It has been 15 years since my father's murder. One can easily see how the British government can string out “judicial proceedings” for at least another 15 years – if not much longer. “The British could set up a situation which leads to a domino effect of persons being charged, facing trials, being convicted or acquitted, followed by appeal hearings that continue for many, many years. “Frankly, the reality is that I may now never see a public inquiry into my father's murder during the course of my own lifetime,” said Michael Finucane. One of the critical aspects of the Cory report on Pat Finucane's assassination is the confirmation that the Security Service (MI5) “provided overall direction for and coordinated intelligence initiatives carried out by other agencies such as FRU and RUC Special Branch”. “The Security Service did not play an active role in the day-to-day operations of these agencies, though it did act in a supervisory capacity.” MI5 (which supervised FRU and Special Branch), had a joint committee along with MI6 operatives in Ireland, called the Joint Irish Section (JIS). The JIS reports directly to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which is part of the Cabinet Office. In turn the JIC is directly accountable to Downing Street, and it is the evidence of this chain of command - from Special Branch and FRU, through MI5, through the JIS, through the JIC and Cabinet Office, and ultimately through to the Prime Minster's office – that those who identify collusion as ‘institutionalised policy' are now highlighting. Both the Special Branch and MI5 declined to take any action to notify Mr Finucane of three threats against his life – in August 1981, in June 1985, and in December 1988. Judge Cory also found that just four months before he was killed, in November 1988, senior Special Branch officers – along with the then RUC Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable – provided a briefing to British Junior Minster, Douglas Hogg. This was followed in January 1989 by Special Branch forwarding Mr Hogg a report about Pat Finucane that alleged he was closely linked to “PIRA/PSF”. Under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, Mr Hogg then made a highly controversial remark that there were a number of solicitors in the North who were “unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA”. Within weeks Pat Finucane was assassinated. Four of the key UDA members involved in the killing have since been identified as Special Branch or FRU agents.
Collusion was British State policy Fifteen years after the assassination of leading Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane, his widow Geraldine delivered her first public speech in Ireland about the ongoing scandal. Delivering the annual PJ McGrory Memorial Lecture at St Mary's College [sic. Belfast] on Saturday afternoon, Geraldine told a capacity audience that Pat's “name and memory are more alive now, long after his death, than they have ever been”. Entitled ‘Long Road to the Truth', Geraldine's moving address charted the difficult course faced by the Finucane family to obtain the truth about Pat's murder. “My family and I will not stop travelling the road we have embarked upon until a fully independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane is established,” she said. “It seems, however, that the closer we get to the establishment of that public inquiry, the further away it is. “It is a strange situation to be in, where something you have worked for becomes more difficult to achieve the closer you get to it. “I would compare the journey to being like climbing a mountain. “The progress you make at the bottom of the mountain is quick because the ground is well-trodden and the climb is not so steep. “But as you progress up the slope and you get further away from familiar ground, the going gets tougher and the terrain becomes much steeper. “The air is thinner and easy paths are more difficult to find. “When you close in on the summit, progress can slow to a near halt, as each step requires more and more effort. “The journey toward the establishment of a public inquiry into Pat's murder is the mountain we have had to climb. “The difficulty of the terrain is the resistance from the State. “Our summit, of course, is the truth,” said Geraldine. Bravely rehearsing the facts about her husband's murder, Geraldine pointed the finger at British Minister Douglas Hogg who “slurred the reputations of solicitors working”. Security documentation was provided to the UDA through the British Army spy Brian Nelson so that loyalist assassins "could be more effective in targeting people for assassination". Brian Nelson's Commanding Officer, Brigadier Gordon Kerr, was in charge of a secret military unit called the Force Research Unit. “Brigadier Kerr, under the pseudonym ‘Colonel J, gave evidence at Brian Nelson's trial in order to help mitigate the sentence imposed upon him. “This appearance by Kerr was approved at high levels within the British political and army establishments, just as the activities of the FRU were sanctioned and approved. “After Kerr gave his evidence, he received a letter from General Sir John Wilsey, General Officer Commanding, Headquarters Northern Ireland: ‘I cannot let your most sensible and effective contribution on 29 January go without congratulating you most warmly. Not only did you more than honour your commitment to Nelson, but you also served the Army's and I judge national interests, extremely well.' “My family and I have not co-operated with Sir John Stevens, but I think part of his report is worth quoting here, if only because it is so forceful in its simplicity: ‘My enquiries have highlighted collusion, the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder. These serious acts and omissions have meant that people have been killed or seriously injured.' “When Sir John Stevens quoted this statement aloud in Belfast on 17 April 2003, he set the case of Pat Finucane apart from all others and changed fundamentally something about the fabric of the place in which we live. “This happened not just because of what he actually said, but also because of what his statement represented. “In delivering even the briefest of summaries of his full report, the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, the highest-ranking Police Officer in Britain was saying, in plain and unmistakable language, that collusion happened. “That it was real. “That it is real. “Sir John Stevens – a British Police officer, their foremost police officer – confirmed that collusion with paramilitaries was institutionalised, that it was entrenched, that all of the rumours and accusations, claims and counter-claims made over the years were absolutely true. That it was part of British State policy in Ireland and may even have prolonged the conflict. “The murder of Pat Finucane is not just about the killing of one man: it is a documented example of a British Government policy in action: state-sponsored murder,” declared Geraldine. “When Judge Cory finished his work in October 2003, he delivered his reports to the British Government for publication, a commitment that had been made at Weston Park by both the British and Irish Governments. “They both agreed that, ‘[t]he relevant Government will publish the final reports (but not the documents on which they are based) subject only to any necessary adjustments to ensure that the privacy and right to life of individuals is protected…' “This did not happen. “The reports presented to the British Government were not published for six months after they were submitted.” Outlining the legal battle that she and her family had to mount in order to ensure publication of the Cory Report, Geraldine quoted the comments of senior NIO representative Joe Pilling who claimed that there are “complex legal and human rights considerations that must be resolved before publication to prevent the risk of a successful challenge that would stop publication.” “When the reports were eventually published on 1 April this year, the version of the report by Judge Cory on Pat's case was the most heavily censored of them all,” said Geraldine. “On 1 April 2004, Paul Murphy MP, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made a statement in the House of Commons to accompany the release of the four reports. “In the case of my husband, no commitment to a public inquiry was given, nor has one been offered since. “I am now engaged in another court case against the British Government to compel them to commence a public inquiry into the murder of my husband, as recommended by Judge Cory. “I should not have to do this. “The British Government made a commitment to implement the recommendations of Judge Cory and they are breaking that commitment by refusing to commence an inquiry. “I have spent the last fifteen years fighting to expose the truth behind the murder of my husband. “I believe that the truth will remain hidden until a fully independent public judicial inquiry is established to investigate all of the circumstances. “If justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere, then the millions who have watched the attempts to deny justice to Pat Finucane and his family by the British Government will not allow themselves to be diminished without responding. “The legacy of Pat Finucane will not be diminished for as long as one person demands the truth. “It is this, the continuation of this work, this vocation, this ideal, that brings us together this afternoon in memory of Pat Finucane, under the memorial of Paddy McGrory,” Geraldine said.
Statement issued Thursday 23 September 2004 by Secretary of State Paul Murphy MP As I said when publishing Justice Cory's reports, the Government is determined that where there are allegations of collusion the truth should emerge. The Government has consistently made clear that in the case of the murder of Patrick Finucane, as well as in the other cases investigated by Justice Cory, it stands by the commitment made at Weston Park. However, in the Finucane case, an individual was being prosecuted for the murder. The police investigation by Sir John Stevens and his team continued; and it was not possible to say whether further prosecutions might follow. For that reason, the Government committed to set out the way ahead at the conclusion of prosecutions. The prosecution of Ken Barrett has now been completed, with Barrett sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Patrick Finucane. It is still possible that further prosecutions might result from the Stevens investigation into the murder of Patrick Finucane. Nevertheless, with the Barrett trial now concluded, and following consultation with the Attorney General, who is responsible for the prosecutorial process, the Government has considered carefully the case for proceeding to an inquiry. In doing so, the Government has taken into account the exceptional concern about this case. Against that background, the Government has concluded that steps should now be taken to enable the establishment of an inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane. As in any inquiry, the tribunal will be tasked with uncovering the full facts of what happened, and will be given all the powers and resources necessary to fulfil that task. In order that the inquiry can take place speedily and effectively and in a way that takes into account the public interest, including the requirements of national security, it will be necessary to hold the inquiry on the basis of new legislation which will be introduced shortly.
Statement issued Thursday 23rd September 2004 from the Finucane family At last the Government have conceded that the truth should emerge about the circumstances surrounding Pat's murder. The fact that Paul Murphy has announced the establishment of an enquiry is not the end of the matter. The fact that he has not announced a "public" enquiry means that the Government probably does not intend to have a proper inquiry. We have been asking for the truth to emerge for the last 15 years. There is no need for new legislation to protect the public interest or national security because the current law caters for this. Special legislation when it isn't needed can only mean that rather than the truth emerging what will emerge is cover up and lies.
An inquiry into Finucane - but what kind? Today, the UK authorities have finally announced that an inquiry into the 1989 killing of Patrick Finucane in Northern Ireland will be established. However, instead of announcing a public judicial inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, the UK authorities have stated that the inquiry will be held on the basis of legislation to be introduced shortly. Amnesty International views this announcement with great suspicion. It states that the Finucane inquiry will require the introduction of new legislation to take account of "the requirements of national security". In light of this, Amnesty International strongly suspects that the UK authorities are using "national security" to curtail the ability of the inquiry to shed light on state collusion in the killing of Patrick Finucane; on allegations that his killing was the result of an official policy and that different government authorities played a part in the subsequent cover-up of collusion in his killing. "With this announcement, the UK authorities are making the 'public interest' subservient to 'national security'. However, the public interest can only be served by ensuring public scrutiny of the full circumstances of Patrick Finucane's killing and its aftermath," Amnesty International said today. A further concern is the fact that in their statement the UK authorities do not commit themselves to setting up a public inquiry. The failure to set up a public inquiry would amount to reneging on their commitment to fully comply with Justice Peter Cory's recommendation. In his October 2003 report into the Finucane case, Justice Cory concluded unequivocally that "only a public inquiry will suffice". Background Patrick Finucane, an outspoken human rights lawyer, was shot 14 times in his home in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1989 by loyalist paramilitaries. His was just one among a number of killings alleged to have been carried out with the collusion of UK security forces. In the aftermath of Patrick Finucane’s killing, substantial and credible allegations of state collusion began to emerge almost immediately. Since then, prima facie evidence of criminal conduct by police and military intelligence agents acting in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in the killing has emerged. In addition, allegations have emerged of a subsequent cover-up by different government agencies and authorities, including the police, the British Army, MI5 (the UK Security Service, officially "responsible for protecting the UK against threats to national security") and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. In May 2002, the UK and Irish governments appointed Justice Peter Cory - a former Canadian Supreme Court Judge - to investigate a number of killings in which government security forces were reported to be involved, including the killing of Patrick Finucane. Justice Cory submitted his reports in October 2003, but it was not until April 2004 that the UK authorities finally published them, simultaneously announcing the creation of public inquiries into three cases. However, they refused to announce a public inquiry into Patrick Finucane's case despite Justice Cory's unequivocal conclusion that in his case "only a public inquiry will suffice". Instead, the authorities have referred to "set[ting] out the way ahead at the conclusion of prosecutions". On 16 September 2004, Kenneth Barrett, a former loyalist paramilitary, was convicted of, and sentenced for, the murder of Patrick Finucane. His was the only outstanding prosecution arising from the case. Kenneth Barrett’s conviction removed any purported justification on the part of the UK authorities not to immediately initiate a public inquiry into the allegations of collusion in Patrick Finucane's killing.
Statement from the Law Society of England and Wales 23/09/04 Public inquiry into murder of solicitor must finally uncover truth says Law Society The Law Society is pleased that the British Government has finally agreed to set-up an independent inquiry into the death of solicitor Patrick Finucane. However, the Society is gravely concerned that the inquiry will be held under proposed legislation which may prevent the full disclosure of findings. In addition, the inquiry is being delayed yet again while this new legislation is introduced. For the past nine years the Law Society of England and Wales has campaigned for a public inquiry into allegations of state collusion in the murder of the Belfast solicitor in 1989. On 20 September, Edward Nally, President of the Law Society of England and Wales, wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to order a public inquiry. Mr Nally believes the case deserves special treatment because of its impact on the administration of justice; "The Law Society has long-campaigned for an independent inquiry into the death of Mr Finucance. There has been a plethora of investigations and reports into the murder that have produced a growing body of evidence of official collusion. It is a fundamental principle that solicitors must be able to advise their clients without fear or interference. "This inquiry should be held straight away under existing legislation. We are tired of successive governments' refusal to allow the truth about Patrick Finucane's murder to be known." The Law Society regulates and represents the solicitors' profession in England and Wales and has a public interest role in working for reform of the law. Solicitors in Scotland and Northern Ireland are represented by the Law Societies in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.
Inquiries Bill Published Proposals to force the chairmen of public inquiries to avoid unnecessary costs were published by the British government today. The measures - designed to stop inquiries spiralling out of control - came in the week the long-running Saville Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday entered its final stages. Lord Saville opened his inquiry at Derry's Guildhall in April 1998 and the final cost is estimated at £150 million. The UK's Department for Constitutional Affairs today published its Inquiries Bill, which overhauls legislation dating back to 1871 and provides a "simple framework" for inquiries into matters of public concern such as rail crashes or police activities. One clause in the Bill reads: "In making any decision as to the procedure or conduct of an inquiry, the chairman must have a regard to the need to avoid any unnecessary costs." It adds: "Each decision to admit evidence, to hold oral hearings, or to allow legal representation adds to the cost of the inquiry. "The requirement ... will strengthen the chairman's ability to defend decisions in which the need to limit costly elements of an inquiry was a factor." The Bill also creates new powers for an inquiry chairman in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to compel people to give evidence. Refusing to co-operate could lead to six months' imprisonment, rising to 51 weeks when powers already passed by Parliament to double magistrates' maximum sentencing powers come into force.
Pat Finucane - Enough is Enough
The family of murdered Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, have said they cannot take part in the proposed inquiry into his murder under the terms published by the British government yesterday. They pointed out that the 'Inquiries Bill' does not comply with the recommendations set out by British-appointed Judge Peter Cory. Human rights solicitor Pat Finucane was gunned down in front of his family in their north Belfast home in February 1989 by the Ulster Freedom Fighters, working on behalf of (and in collusion with) the RUC Special Branch and the Force Research Unit of the British Army. The Finucane family have released a press statement that says: "This bill does not comply with the recommendations of Judge Cory. The British Government agreed at Weston Park that "In the event that a public inquiry is recommended (by Cory) in any case, the relevant government will implement that recommendation". Judge Cory recommended a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Pat's murder and identified the "basic requirements" for a public inquiry. One of these requirements was stated to be that "the Tribunal should have full power to subpoena witnesses and documents together with all the powers usually exercised by a Commissioner in a public inquiry. Clause 17 of the Bill is a wholesale departure from the Weston Park Agreement and the Cory Recommendation in that an inquiry established under this draft legislation will not have all the powers usually exercised by a Commissioner in a public inquiry since, it gives the Minister the power to determine when the inquiry sits in private and what material is to be withheld. These are self-evidently amongst the most important powers exercised by inquiries. Furthermore, this provision in the bill attacks the very independence of any such inquiry since it will not be vested with exclusive jurisdiction and control which is the very hallmark of independence. In addition and in order to be truly independent the tribunal will have to be international in character and be composed of judges of standing equivalent to Judge Cory. The Finucane family cannot take part in any inquiry established under these conditions. We call upon all those who signed up to the Weston Park principles to ensure that they are fulfilled and that Judge Cory's recommendation is implemented in full." On 23rd September 2004, British Secretary of State for 'Northern Ireland', Paul Murphy, finally announced that an inquiry into the 1989 murder of Pat Finucane would be established. However, instead of announcing a public judicial inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, Paul Murphy stated that the inquiry would be held on the basis of new legislation to be introduced shortly to take account of "the requirements of national security". He did this despite the fact that British-appointed Judge Peter Cory concluded that a public inquiry was "essential if the public confidence in the police, the army and the administration of justice is to be restored".
Interfering in the inquiry By Peter Madden Today is the 16th anniversary of the assassination of Pat Finucane. For 16 years, from the very night that Pat was murdered in 1989, his family has called for and campaigned for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his murder. Why did the campaign start immediately? Because we knew right away that there was collusion in his murder. For months before his murder, Pat was getting death threats from the RUC at Castlereagh interrogation centre. Three weeks before his murder, Douglas Hogg, the British government Home Office minister, stated in the House of Commons that some solicitors were ‘unduly sympathetic' to the IRA. We knew he meant the solicitors who represented people accused in the Castlereagh interrogation centre of being members of the IRA. Verbal and physical abuse from the RUC was a fact of life in those days. It had been going on for years. It was honed to perfection in Castlereagh, where people were abused in isolation for up to seven days without charge or release. There were no witnesses. There were cases of people being taken from Castlereagh for hospitalisation. For months before his death, Pat recorded the threats to his life. I kept the record of these threats in a drawer in a filing cabinet in my office. I still have an image in my mind of Pat returning from Castlereagh, coming into my office when I was on the phone, nodding to me and pointed to the filing cabinet as he brought yet another recorded threat against him. I remember at the time that we both wondered what was going on, which was why we decided to collate these threats separately. These threats were also in our minds when Douglas Hogg made his infamous and still unsubstantiated statement. We now know that Hogg had been briefed by the RUC. Police commissioner John Stevens said that Hogg “was compromised”. He didn't elaborate. The family was joined in its call for a public inquiry by senior political and church figures. Hogg's resignation was demanded. Of course, Hogg didn't resign and, for 16 years, the British government has resisted the call for a public inquiry. After 16 years of government delaying tactics accompanied by lobbying by the family and numerous legal proceedings, the British government has at long last announced that a public inquiry will be established. But before a public inquiry will be established, the law will be changed so that the government will have total control of the information and of the inquiry itself. This is in stark contrast to the current law, where a tribunal controls all issues, including publication of material and private sittings. The new law, The Inquiries Bill, which is currently going through the legislative process, will allow the government to prevent an inquiry panel from publishing material or ordering public sittings even if that panel wishes to do so. However, even if the new law is passed, the British government is not off the hook as far as Pat's case is concerned because the government agreed in Weston Park to comply with the recommendations of the Canadian Supreme Court judge Peter Cory. The judge was appointed by the British and Irish governments to examine and report on a number of cases, including Pat's case. At Weston Park, the British government agreed “that in the event that a public inquiry is recommended [by Cory] in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation.” Judge Cory recommended a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Pat's murder and identified the “basic requirements” for a public inquiry. One of these requirements was stated to be that “the Tribunal should have full power to subpoena witnesses and documents together with all the powers usually exercised by a Commissioner in a public inquiry”. The proposed new law does not comply with the recommendations of Judge Cory. Clause 17 of the bill is a wholesale departure from the Weston Park agreement and the Cory recommendation is that an inquiry established under this draft legislation will not have all the powers usually exercised by a commissioner in a public inquiry because the minister would be given the power to determine when the inquiry would sit in private and what material would be withheld. These are self-evidently among the most important powers exercised by inquiries, which are the very powers the government intends to emasculate. The Irish government has supported the Finucane family along with the nationalist political parties. Mitchell Reiss, the US government representative, is on record as calling on the British government to implement Judge Cory's recommendations. The family has made clear that any public inquiry established has to be Cory Compliant. In other words, the family is calling on both governments to fulfil the terms of the Weston Park agreement as far as Pat's case is concerned and to ensure that the inquiry panel has control of its own inquiry. The new legislation is not Cory Compliant. The British government is therefore in breach of the terms of the Weston Park agreement. We would expect the Irish government to require the British government to fulfil its obligations in that regard. The British government will have to come up with some formula within the context of the proposed new law to make Pat's inquiry Cory Compliant. The Finucane family cannot take part in an inquiry controlled by the British government because it was directly involved in Pat's murder. In his summary report, Judge Cory said that papers relating to Pat Finucane were examined by the British cabinet. Finally, as we told Tony Blair at a recent meeting with him, the inquiry panel, in order to be truly independent, has to be composed of reputable international legal figures of the same standing as Judge Cory himself. We have to be satisfied that they will have the power to control the proceedings and not the British government. We will have no chance of getting near the truth until these requirements are satisfied. Peter Madden was Pat Finucane's partner in Madden and Finucane Solicitors.
Festering wounds will never heal over
Sixteen years ago today, the kitchen of the Finucane home in north Belfast was the bloody scene of a murder that continues to haunt Geraldine Finucane, her family and the entire British political and security establishment. The jury is currently out on whether the Finucane family will co-operate with the inquiry due to delve into the murky waters of collusion between loyalists and British military intelligence/RUC Special Branch. Its terms are still being discussed in London and if they mean secrets will remain hidden from the tribunal, the Finucanes won't be having anything to do with it. But the family desperately wants an inquiry set up as soon as possible - before any more witnesses die or papers become “lost”. “We're not naïve”, says Geraldine Finucane. “We know not everything will come out in public. But we do insist that the tribunal decides what's published and what isn't. Not some British minister or bureaucrat. “We must have confidence in the terms of the inquiry. Not just for our own sakes but for the sake of the people of Ireland. We want to participate, but we won't settle for half measures”. That clarity of purpose, and flinty determination, is typical of the woman who was herself shot in the foot on the day, 16 years ago, when her husband was murdered in front of her. As blood flowed from her own wound, the stench of gunsmoke in her nostrils, knowing that Pat lay dead, she was told to get into an ambulance. Geraldine Finucane, however, as we all now know, is no quitter and refused all medical help until her mother arrived to care for children John, Katherine and Michael (then aged eight, 12 and 17). Geraldine wants to make it clear, though, that the past 16 years have not only been a struggle to vindicate her dead husband's memory. Her battle is also for all the dozens of other bereaved who are fighting for the truth about collusion. “This is a very, very personal battle for us, because Pat was so precious to us, but we know we have another massive responsibility on our shoulders on behalf of others.” The British state doesn't like admitting its faults, she says, but if they can crack the Finucane case open, others will surely follow. Although today is an anniversary of his death, it won't be “special”, she says. “I don't need an anniversary to think of Pat. There's not a day goes by that I don't think of him.” She has learned to control her loss, however. “If I dwelled on what happened in the house that night, I'd go under. You can't afford to be too emotional”. Although she had always suspected collusion in Pat Finucane's murder, it wasn't until the British/Irish Rights Watch report drew all the evidence together that her fears were backed with concrete facts. “I said to myself ‘Oh my God. This was a policy. It wasn't just Pat. It affects everybody'”. All of this was a million miles away when Geraldine first met Pat as a student at Trinity College, Dublin. “We lived all over the city, north and south of the river. We were young and it was a wonderful time”, she says. They married before they left college. She was from a Protestant background, he was a Catholic and, back home in Belfast, storm clouds were gathering. Pat Finucane's youngest brother was aged just eight when the family was forced from their Falls Road home by a loyalist mob. Hard times force people to take a stand and Pat found his stand in the law. “Pat saw what was happening. He was an intelligent man, the law could help people. It was a very simple thought.” Pat began a course at Queen's University, Geraldine taught English. Pat then set up a law firm with a friend, Peter Madden. One of the young lawyer's most gratifying victories was in the case of Nora McCabe, a mother of three, murdered with a plastic bullet. In 1981, Mrs McCabe was walking to buy cigarettes in west Belfast. She was struck on the head by a plastic bullet and died in hospital the following day from a fractured skull. Pat Finucane obtained video evidence from a Canadian film crew that showed there had been no rioting. The inquest jury found that there was no evidence of any legitimate target and that Mrs McCabe was an innocent victim. More than seventy MPs demanded a public inquiry. The McCabe family won compensation. The senior police officer involved was promoted. The rules on inquests were changed. As Pat's reputation grew, he became an increasingly sharp thorn in the side of the British authorities especially after he won the acquittal of senior Belfast republican, and former hunger striker, Pat McGeown. He also acted for the families of some of the shoot-to-kill victims of the 1980's that led to John Stalker, a senior Manchester police officer, investigating claims of a cover-up. Before long, the threats began. The police would tell his clients that “You'll not be having Finucane as a solicitor for much longer”, and “We are going to get him” but, Geraldine says they were never really frightening. Pat continued to love his work. “He didn't invent the law, but people weren't using it. They believed it wouldn't get them anywhere. All Pat did was to use the law. It was very exciting at the time to see ordinary people win cases, and the more cases they won, the more people began to come forward”. Everything, however, changed for the Finucanes in early 1989 when a junior British home office minister, Douglas Hogg, told the House of Commons “that there are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.” Within four weeks Pat lay dead. “The shooting was not the result of a ‘rogue unit' - it was a systematic and deliberate strategy of murder. This isn't now about Pat Finucane alone. Who knows how many others also died? They also need to lay their ghosts to rest”. How high up the British chain of command does she think it went? “I think it could have gone right up to cabinet level. This went on for more than ten years. Those involved were promoted and given British royal honours”. “There are some wounds that can be treated and will heal. “Others are left to fester and cannot heal”, she says. “These cases of collusion must all be investigated thoroughly”. Whether the truth will ever come to light is unknown. What is known, however, is that the Finucanes will be there to see it through.
US Congressional Hearing criticises British attempts The family of Belfast Human Rights lawyer Pat Finucane are in Washington to give evidence to a Congressional Hearing organized by Congressman Chris Smith on the ongoing attempts by the British Government to block the truth emerging surrounding his murder. There is widespread criticism of the British government's plans to hold any probe into the Finucane murder under the auspices of a new Inquiries Bill. The Bill will enable any inquiry to meet in large part in secret and will give government ministers powers to direct aspects of the inquiry. Peter Cory, the Canadian judge who recommended a judicial inquiry into the 1989 murder of lawyer Pat Finucane has criticised British plans to restrict the information the probe can make public. Cory, a retired member of the Canadian Supreme Court, said legislation proposed by Britain to allow much of the probe into the death of Pat Finucane to be held in private and restrict evidence would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. "It really creates an impossible Alice in Wonderland situation," said the judge in a letter to U.S. legislator Chris Smith, who is chairing an ad hoc Congressional committee looking at human rights in the north of Ireland. "If the new act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing," continued Cory's letter. "In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the proposed new act." Congressman Chris Smith said proposals to hear some evidence in private would prevent an open inquiry into the 1989 murder of the solicitor Pat Finucane. Speaking on Radio Ulster's Inside Politics, Mr Smith said the government should give the Finucanes and other families what they had been promised. "That is to have this public inquiry without this new legislation," he said. Mr Smith said this had been promised in the Weston Park talks of 2001. The Taoiseach Bertie Ahern raised the issue with the US President at the White House on Thursday. Speaking afterwards Mr Ahern said that Mr Blair had made "a solemn agreement" at the Weston Park talks in 2001 that Canadian Judge Peter Cory would report on the matter. "We agreed that whatever that report stated would be implemented," he said. "The report, which he (Judge Cory) has reiterated at the Congressional hearings today is that there should be a full sworn inquiry and we have brought this up with the President. "I have also asked him to raise this directly with Prime Minister Blair at an early date," said the Taoiseach. "It is important for us to see that justice is done in every way and this is an outstanding issue since 1989," he said.
Canadian Judge Peter Cory slams Finucane Inquiry legislation In a letter addressed to the head of a US Congressional Committee Judge Peter Cory has slamed the current legislation which is intended to define the remit and scope of the inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. Judge Cory, who was appointed by the Irish and British governments at Weston Park to rule on public inquiries in a number of cases has today described the current situation as 'an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation' and urged fellow Canadian judges to boycott any proposed inquiry should they be approached by the British Government. In the letter to Congressman Chris Smith Judge Cory stated: "I cannot contemplate any self respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act." The full text of the letter is published below. Earlier today Geraldine Finucane and Mitchell Reiss gave evidence to the same congressional committee which received Judge Cory's letter (see above). The Honorable Peter Cory C.C., C.D., Q.C. Dear Chairman Smith The proposed legislation pertaining to the public inquiries is unfortunate to say the least. First, it must be remembered that when the Weston Park Accord was signed, the signatories would have had only one concept of a public inquiry. Namely, that it would be conducted pursuant to the 1921 Public Inquiry Act. Indeed, as an example the Bloody Sunday Inquiry would have commenced its work as a public inquiry by that time. The families of the victims and the people of Northern Ireland would have thought that if a public Inquiry were to be directed it would be brought into existence pursuant to the1921 Public Inquiry Act. To change the ground rules at this late date seems unfair. It seems as well unnecessary since the security of the realm would be ensured by the courts when the issue arose in a true public inquiry. My report certainly contemplated a true Public Inquiry constituted and acting pursuant to the provisions of the 1921 Act. Further, it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the Inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act. Yours sincerely The Honourable Peter Cory
Finucane inquiry must be transparent: envoy The British government's inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane must be transparent and have the necessary power to publish the full truth, it was warned last night. Mitchell Reiss, US envoy to Northern Ireland, expressed concern that the new legislation governing inquiries could potentially reduce the independence and transparency of an investigation into the murder. It was also revealed last night that Canadian Judge Peter Cory said that an inquiry should not go ahead under the current legislation. The human rights group, the Pat Finucane Centre, last night said that Judge Cory described the current situation as “Alice in Wonderland”. Mr Finucane was murdered in February 1989 and his family is still fighting for the truth surrounding allegations of British military and police collusion. Mr Reiss told an ad hoc committee on Northern Ireland human rights in Washington that, if the forthcoming inquiry was to receive the confidence of the Irish people, the Inquiries Act currently being considered by Parliament must have the power to reveal specific detail. “Whatever legislative instrument is used, my concern is that the inquiry has the necessary legal powers to establish the truth of what happened in the Finucane case and that the process has the confidence of the people in Northern Ireland," he said. “The chair and other members of the inquiry should be fully satisfied that the terms of reference will provide them with the authority necessary to establish the truth and to examine thoroughly the allegations of collusion highlighted by Judge Cory." Judge Cory's conclusion that there was strong evidence of collusion by the army, the RUC and the security service prompted the British government to accept the need for an inquiry. But by concealing various names in order to protect compromising prosecutions, the government has attracted widespread criticism. “Public confidence requires as much transparency as possible, within the constraints of protecting lives and considerations of national security," Mr Reiss said. "Judge Cory's report is eloquent on this point: 'Without public scrutiny, doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection through the Northern Ireland community'." After gunman Ken Barrett confessed to the Finucane murder last September, Secretary of State Paul Murphy announced that the government would establish an inquiry but that it would be based on this new legislation. The Finucane family, as well as several human rights groups, have raised concerns about the provisions of the proposed Inquiries Act.
The Inquiries Bill: The Wrong Answer Here follows a joint statement by:
The above-listed organisations jointly express our concern over some of the provisions of the Inquiries Bill introduced into Parliament on 24th November 2004. The Bill, being discussed this week by a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, would, if enacted, alter fundamentally the system for establishing and running inquiries into issues of great public importance in the UK, including allegations of serious human rights violations. Should it be passed into law, the effect of the Bill on individuals and cases that merit a public inquiry would be highly detrimental. In particular, in those cases where one or more person has died or been killed, the right of their surviving family members to know the truth about what happened and to an effective investigation could be violated by the operation of the Bill. The fundamental problem contained in the Inquiries Bill is its shift in emphasis towards inquiries established and largely controlled by government Ministers. This shift is achieved by the repeal of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and the terms of several of the Bill’s clauses. These clauses grant broad powers to the Minister establishing an inquiry on issues such as the setting of the terms of reference, restrictions on funding for an inquiry, suspension or termination of an inquiry, restrictions on public access to inquiry proceedings and to evidence submitted to an inquiry, and restrictions on public access to the final report of an inquiry. The Bill does not grant the independence to inquiry chairs and panels that has made their role so crucial in examining issues, particularly where public confidence has been undermined. Several of us have already laid out our concerns about the Bill in earlier statements and briefings and we are pleased to note that some amendments to the Bill have already been adopted in the House of Lords. However, we continue to have serious concerns about the Bill in its current form and we urge all members of Parliament to take these concerns into account in their ongoing consideration of the Bill. We also wish to draw attention to the views expressed on this matter by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, by the Public Administration Select Committee, and by two notable jurists, namely Lord Saville of Newdigate and former Canadian Supreme Court justice Judge Peter Cory. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that several provisions of the Bill may not be compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they would inhibit an effective investigation into cases involving deaths. For example, the Committee has expressed concern that “the threat of withdrawal of funding by the Minister could unduly constrain the independence of an inquiry, and fail to satisfy the Article 2 requirement of an independent inquiry.” The Committee has further stated that “the independence of a tribunal is secured both by the institutional and legal structure in which it operates, and by the restraint and impartiality exercised in practice by those involved. Even given the proper restraint by Ministers in the exercise of powers considered above, their availability in respect of an inquiry would risk affecting its independence, both actual and perceived.” With particular regard to the power of Ministers to issue restriction notices, the Committee concluded that “the independence of an inquiry is put at risk by ministerial power to issue these restrictions, and … this lack of independence may fail to satisfy the Article 2 obligation to investigate…” It also was concerned that the ministerial power to withhold publication of all or part of an inquiry report is “wide enough to compromise the independence of an inquiry.” The Public Administration Select Committee also criticised many facets of the Inquiries Bill, in its report following its inquiry into “Government by Inquiry”. In particular, the Committee expressed concern about Ministers conducting inquiries into their own or their department’s actions. Published correspondence between Lord Saville, who chairs the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, and DCA Minister Baroness Ashton relating to the Bill is also of great importance, as it demonstrates the serious reservations of a senior judge and chair of a complex current inquiry. In particular, Lord Saville is concerned about the clause granting Ministers the power to issue notices restricting public access to inquiry proceedings and materials. In a letter of 26th January, Lord Saville states, “I take the view that this provision makes a very serious inroad into the independence of any inquiry and is likely to damage or destroy public confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in cases where the conduct of the authorities may be in question.” He further stated that neither he nor his fellow judges on the BSI would be prepared to be appointed as a member of an inquiry that was subject to a provision of that kind. Despite the addition in the House of Lords of a clause setting out a presumption of public access to inquiry proceedings, restriction notices issued by Ministers could still result in secret inquiries that would, as feared by Lord Saville, be “likely to damage or destroy public confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in cases where the conduct of the authorities may be in question.” On 15th March, 2005, Judge Peter Cory, a retired Canadian Supreme Court justice who was appointed by the British and Irish governments in 2002 to investigate allegations of state collusion in six controversial murder cases, wrote a letter expressing his own fears about the potential effects of the Inquiries Bill. He described the Bill as “unfortunate to say the least” and with specific reference to the case of murdered Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane stated, “It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible.” Judge Cory noted that “the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step” and he concluded that he “cannot contemplate any self respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act”. We agree with all of these views and urge Parliament to take them very seriously. An inquiry held under the Bill as currently drafted would not be effective, independent, impartial or thorough, nor would the evidence presented to it be subject to sufficient public scrutiny. Such an inquiry would fall far short of the requirement of international human rights law that an effective remedy be provided to the victims of human rights violations. Moreover, the passage of the Inquiries Bill in its current form would do great harm to the tradition of public inquiries in the UK and would undermine the important principles of accountability and transparency. In order to command public confidence, it is absolutely necessary that an inquiries system permit close independent public scrutiny and provide for the active participation of the relevant victims. The Inquiries Bill does not do this.
Finucane widow urges judges to shun inquiry Geraldine Finucane, widow of the murdered Northern Ireland human rights solicitor Patrick Finucane, has written to all senior judges in England, Wales and Scotland, asking them to refuse to sit on any inquiry into her husband's death under new legislation. Lord Saville, who chaired the Bloody Sunday inquiry, has criticised the Inquiries Act 2005, which allows ministers to issue notices stopping certain evidence from being given in public and restricting publication in the public interest. The act replaces the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which gives chairmen a free hand. Lord Saville has told Baroness Ashton, minister in the department of constitutional affairs, in a letter: "This provision makes a very serious inroad into the independence of any inquiry; and is likely to damage or destroy public confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in any case where the conduct of the authorities may be in question. "As a judge, I must tell you that I would not be prepared to be appointed as a member of an inquiry that was subject to a provision of this kind." The Canadian judge Peter Cory was appointed by the British and Irish governments to investigate allegations of collusion in Mr Finucane's murder. He concluded in 2003 that there was "strong evidence that collusive acts were committed" by the army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security service, and that a public inquiry was needed. A British government official told the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva last week that a public inquiry would be held into Mr Finucane's murder, but that most witnesses would give evidence in private. However, Judge Cory told the US Congressional hearings into human rights in Northern Ireland last month, before the act became law: "It seems to me that the proposed new act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry, would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. "It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. "If the new act were to be come law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act," he said. In her letter, Mrs Finucane cites the views of Lord Saville and Judge Cory and asks the judges: "In view of these considerations I write to request that, if approached to serve on an Inquiries Act Inquiry into my husband's murder, you, like Lord Saville and Judge Cory, refuse to accept such an appointment." Lorna Davidson, of British Irish Rights Watch, said: "The minister can prevent particular witnesses' evidence from being given in public and any evidence could be expunged from the final report. "The fear is that any witnesses who might say anything remotely damaging or controversial might be heard in private, so we'd never get to know what they actually said." A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Office said: "The government is clear that the Inquiries Act provides the best way for a Finucane inquiry to proceed efficiently and effectively in a way which takes into account both the wider public interest and the public interest in national security. "Absolutely nothing will be withheld from the person chairing the inquiry or the inquiry team."
Letter from Geraldine Finucane Dear On Sunday 12 February 1989 my husband Pat was murdered in front of our children and me. In June 2002 Judge Peter Cory was appointed by the British and Irish Governments to "conduct a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion by the security forces" in my husband's murder. Judge Cory's letter of appointment (reflecting the Weston Park Agreement) stated: "In the event that a public inquiry is recommended … the … government will implement that recommendation". In my husband's case Judge Cory concluded: "There is strong evidence that collusive acts were committed by the army (FRU), the RUC SB and the Security Service. I am satisfied that there is a need for a public inquiry". Judge Cory made it clear (as para.1.294 of his report) that when he spoke of a "public inquiry" he took that term to encompass "certain essential characteristics" which included independence and full powers to subpoena witnesses and documents together with all the powers usually exercised by a Commissioner in a public inquiry. Judge Cory's conclusions were delivered to the government in October 2003. Despite the clarity of his recommendations and the judgment of the European Court which found that the government had, in breach of Article 2 ECHR, failed promptly and effectively to investigate Pat's murder, the government failed to establish an inquiry as recommended. In a statement to Parliament on 1 April 2004 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Paul Murphy, said: "… The inquiries will have the full powers of the High Court to compel witnesses and papers. The powers are the same as those granted to inquiries set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, under which the Bloody Sunday inquiry operates. …" [Emphasis added] Despite the undertaking given by the government to Parliament to implement the Cory recommendation in full, the government has now enacted the Inquiries Act 2005. The provisions of that Act clearly fall far short of the Cory recommendations. Indeed Judge Cory himself has said: "It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The Commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian Judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian Judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act". The Chairman of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, Lord Saville of Newdigate, has expressed similar concerns: "I take the view that this provision makes a very serious inroad into the independence of any inquiry; and is likely to damage or destroy public confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in any case where the conduct of the authorities may be in question. As a Judge, I must tell you that I would not be prepared to be appointed as a member of an inquiry that was subject to a provision of this kind. I have shown the provision in question to … William Hoyt (formerly Chief Justice of the Canadian Province of New Brunswick) and John Toohey (formerly a Justice of the High Court of Australia). Both have told me that they too would not be prepared to accept appointment to an inquiry that was subject to a provision of this kind …". The Irish Times reported on 14 March 2005 that Lord Saville's concerns are shared by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. In view of these considerations I write to request that, if approached to serve on an Inquiries Act Inquiry into my husband's murder, you, like Lord Saville and Judge Cory refuse to accept such an appointment. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely --------------------------------
Amnesty International urges judiciary not to partake in inquiry sham
Amnesty International today called on all judges in the UK to decline appointments to sit on any inquiry set up under the new Inquiries Act 2005 – including the promised inquiry into allegations of security force collusion in the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane. The campaigning organisation also called for the repeal of the Inquiries Act 2005. The Amnesty call comes just days after a similar request to judges from Mr Finucane's widow Geraldine who wrote individually to every senior judge in England, Scotland and Wales earlier this week. A press release from Amnesty International today said: "Amnesty International calls on all judges, whether in the United Kingdom (UK) or in other jurisdictions, to decline appointments as chairs or panel members to any inquiry established under the recently enacted Inquiries Act 2005, including an inquiry into allegations of state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane. The organization is also urging the Act's repeal. "Amnesty International supports the call of Geraldine Finucane, Patrick Finucane's widow, to all senior judges in England, Wales and Scotland not to serve on an inquiry into her husband's case held under the new legislation. "By proposing to hold an inquiry into the Finucane case under the Inquiries Act 2005, the UK government is trying to eliminate independent scrutiny of the actions of its agents. Any judge sitting on such an inquiry would be presiding over a sham." Patrick Finucane, an outspoken human rights lawyer, was shot dead in his home in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on 12 February 1989 by Loyalist paramilitaries. In the aftermath of his killing, prima facie evidence of criminal conduct by police and military intelligence agents, acting in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder, emerged. In addition, allegations have emerged of a subsequent cover-up by different government agencies and authorities. In April 2004, an independent report, commissioned by the UK and Irish governments, concluded that "only a public inquiry will suffice" in Patrick Finucane's case. Instead, in the face of strong criticism and opposition, the UK executive railroaded the Inquiries Bill through Parliament and managed to have it passed as legislation as the Inquiries Act 2005 on 7 April 2005, the last possible day before Parliament was dissolved. Any inquiry, held under the new Act, would be controlled by the executive which, under it, is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions. It will affect not only Patrick Finucane's case, but also other major incidents which would warrant public scrutiny of the actions of the state, such as failures of public services, deaths in prisons, rail disasters and army deaths in disputed circumstances. "The Inquiri |
