Anthony McIntyre ☠ The only surprise, if indeed one can be found, in response to the acquittal last Thursday of Dave Cleary, AKA Soldier F - a Parachute Regiment 'cruel, cynical and clinical killer' - would be if someone proved naive enough to express surprise at the verdict.
As anticipated by anyone familiar with legacy and the British justice system, a mass killer walked free, his brass neck not weighed down by the albatross of a conviction for murder. That seems to be a fate exclusively reserved for non-state combatants.
The inability to secure a conviction is the latest in a litany of Public Prosecution Service failures in high profile cases. The body, arguably unfit for purpose, has established a record of pursuing cases it cannot win, like the Soldier F one. At the same time, it fails to pursue cases where the likelihood of conviction is considerably higher, as in those recommended for prosecution by Kenova.
Often the British judiciary is found wanting when it comes to delivering justice in Northern courts. On this occasion there was no service delivery failure at the judicial level but very much a failure on the part of the PPS.
The core of the Prosecution case against Killer Cleary was based on hearsay evidence which if not accepted as credible by the court, would result in the case falling apart. The Prosecution made it clear that hearsay was the core evidence, everything else was peripheral. A case was being carved out of rotten wood. There was never a chance of it making across the line.
While allowing the hearsay to be admitted as evidence, the judge ruled that its evidentiary value was of such poor quality, it fell 'well short' of what was required for a conviction. It never even made the bar of manslaughter let alone murder. Yet the PPS continued with a course of action it had to have known would be futile, bringing nothing of comfort or closure to the loved ones of those butchered by Cleary and his murderous colleagues.
As a result, the man widely regarded as the most prolific of the Bloody Sunday killers has been rewarded with a finding that he did not commit murder. It is a backward step from the findings of the Saville Inquiry.
Colum Eastwood, the Derry MP at Westminster, said of the families:
There isn’t much road left in terms of the judicial process for these families, which is very sad and difficult for them . . . It is absolutely clear that those soldiers, including Soldier F, shot and killed people on Bloody Sunday. After 53 years they have shown the world what actually happened on Bloody Sunday.
But they had already shown that to the world long before the trial of Cleary. Saville, which came about because of their unrelenting campaigning, may have fallen short of the hopes held by the relatives of the slain but nevertheless left the global public in no doubt that the Parachute Regiment was guilty of a murderous atrocity perpetrated on the streets of Derry. The image projected onto the world screen from Derry's Guildhall by a British Prime Minister, using the language 'unjustified and unjustifiable', was one of Britain guilty of a massacre, the victims innocent.
By seeking prosecutions for eminently understandable and ethically justifiable reasons, the Bloody Sunday relatives, if it was a finding of guilt they sought, made an error of judgement. There was no tangible advantage to be gained from taking Cleary to court and every advantage for him in being tried. Up until last week he had no legal cover for his actions. Now he has, even if an ethically threadbare one. The British state and political unionism which governed the North at the time of the massacre, will be able to insinuate that whatever happened on Bloody Sunday it did not amount to murder, and they now have a court finding - which they previously did not - to draw upon.
Having closely followed the Saville Inquiry, the right wing conservative British commentator Douglas Murray writing in 2021 said the Bloody Sunday Paras:
What the acquittal of Soldier F demonstrates is the paucity of prosecutions as a truth retrieval mechanism. A psychopath who mowed down innocent people in a British Army massacre is declared not guilty. That is truth suppression not recovery, which might help explain why some of those whose fingerprints are at many a 'crime scene' are happy for prosecutions to continue, confident that the truth about them will not be unlocked through such a mechanism. It suits their purposes of evading accountability to have in place a beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof rather than a balance of probability one.
include not only unapologetic killers, but unrelenting liars . . . if soldier F did indeed presume he could get away with murder that day, who is comfortable with that presumption proving right?
There are enough of them, and they have been buoyed by he comfort blanket of Thursday's very avoidable verdict.
 |
| ⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre. |
Here is a crucial part of the statement Prime Minister David Cameron made to MPs in the House of Commons on the day the Bloody Sunday report was published:
ReplyDelete"For those people who are looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal or politicians to determine."
Yet, if non-state actors kill anyone it is immediately murder. No matter how strong the evidence until there is a successful conviction for murder, which I doubt, state actors will never be tarnished as murderers.
Nor will the state be tarnished with the name of terrorist. What else was it and what else where their actors? It must be an impossible situation for their victims' families.
I said in a piece I wrote in December 2013 on the Quill called Let the Revisionism Begin "I will eat my hat if Security Force members are imprisoned for things like Bloody Sunday or other state directed actions. That is why I believe an all-encompassing amnesty is
appropriate. I know my viewpoint isn’t popular regarding this but the perpetual thirst of some of the victims’ families for justice is never going to be quenched. Why should the British start imprisoning their own people now? It was extremely rare and short-lived when there was fresh evidence available."
I feel for the families. I don't know how they're ever going to get closure. A strong statement might help, from victims criticising British Justice (that popular oxymoron) and how it was always skewed and will always be skewed against the people, particularly working class people and even more specifically Catholic working class people in the North.
Simon - the Cameron logic is continuously echoed by Der Starmer in his refusal to call out the Israeli genocide. He hides behind legalisms claiming it is a matter for the courts. Hamas actions don't meet with the same reservation.
DeleteI agree with your viewpoint, Simon, no state let alone one steeped in blood like the British State will allow its own courts, enquiries or tribunals to brand them or their agents murderers, terrorists or criminals. No, such titles are reserved for those who resist either through demonstrations, armed struggle or civil disobedience.
ReplyDeleteIf it had been republican fighters in the dock; A) there would have been no animinity, like soldier F (Dave Cleary) B) they would have been found guilty before the farce began C) as was the case of Cleary a not guilty verdict would be the outcome, but for republicans a guaranteed guilty verdict would be the case.
The Brits would then say; 'see how fair we are, same rules for both sides' which is, of course bollocks. A blanket amnesty is the only way to safeguard republicans and securing their future. Cleary was not guilty before kick off, and would get thecsame result with a blanket amnesty.
I'm sure the victims families won't see it this way but, and this sounds hard, the whole thing has been a window dressing farce, predetermined by the British state. They built your hopes up then drove a bulldozer through your lives, again!
Caoimhin O'Muraile
Caoimhin - the British judicial system has never willingly delivered justice to Irish people. When it comes it is dragged out of them and they wince as if their teeth have been pulled.
DeleteBut as I tired to point out in this piece, the judge in this case cannot be faulted for the verdict. This is not a judicial failure but a prosecutorial one.
The PPS will claim they did their best and let the judge take the hit. The judge in my view ruled the only way he could given the evidence presented to him. It was set up to fail.
Hearsay evidence should never be permissible in courts - how can a person defend themselves against it when the person who said something cannot be cross examined? If hearsay evidence was admissible the state would be paying people to make statements against those it wants rid of, and those who make the statements would never have to appear in court to give evidence.
There was never a chance that the judge was going to kick this up to an appeal court and have his decisions rubbished.