The Joint Legacy Framework agreed by the British and Irish governments, marks a victory for victims’ relatives, who defeated the Tory Legacy Act in the Court of Appeals and discredited the ICRIR by refusing to participate. The Irish government too, deserves credit for taking Britain to the European Court and for getting Britain to agree terms that have the potential to give justice. However, those who understand the past will welcome the agreement with caution, as we await passage of proposed British legislation, and, crucially, whether new laws are applied in a spirit which finally gives truth to families, after decades of bad faith and injustice.
The inspiration behind this 50 year legacy battle, has always been victims’ relatives, who would not accept being denied the truth about murdered loved ones. All families are equally entitled to justice, but the injustice cut deeper, when state agencies with a duty to uphold justice collaborate in murder cover-ups because the victims were murdered by British state forces or state agents.
When Paras murdered a Catholic priest, a grandmother and eight others at Ballymurymurphy or fourteen civil rights marchers on Bloody Sunday, heroic family and friends overcame decades of denials and delays to get vindication at the Saville Inquiry, then a Ballymurphy Inquest. Even today, the prosecution of Soldier F for Bloody Sunday fuels demands for “special protections” for former British troopers who may have gunned down Irish victims.
When Britain shifted tactics, using state agents to aid, abet and sometimes even direct loyalist murders, they left behind families, like those of Pat Finucane or Sean Brown, who believe public inquiries are needed to uncover the extent of crown collusion in the murder of their loved ones.
The Stormont House Agreement on legacy mechanisms was reached in December 2014, but never legislated. It was reaffirmed with legislation promised within 100 days, under New Decade New Approach in January 2020. Nothing followed. Meanwhile families had taken their fight to the European and local Courts, inquests, civil actions and the Ombudsman. Truth was slowly emerging.
British officials, who claimed they could not enact Stormont House legislation without unanimous consent by Stormont political parties, passed a new Legacy Act over unanimous opposition. They took away inquests and ombudsman reports, attempted an Amnesty with British troopers in mind, and sidelined solicitors and human rights groups by funneling everything into an ICRIR Commission to put a lid on damning revelations.
The new agreement, itself, begs the question. Why has Britain refused to allow the Courts or legacy mechanisms to give these families truth, unless it had much to hide?
As we await enactment of new laws, obvious questions must be posed.
Keir Starmer has referenced “special protections” for former British troopers and the proposed statute requires investigations be “balanced” and “proportionate”. Will “special protections” become a thinly disguised amnesty for troopers who committed murder, or an excuse to block genuine investigations because of prior participation in sham investigations? Will “balanced” and “proportionate” mean limiting investigations into crown force killings to balance them in proportion to investigations of Republicans?
British officials have employed a “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” (NCND) policy, which amounts to a blanket national security veto suppressing disclosure of crucial information about the role of paid British agents in Troubles killings. Hilary Benn has even taken cases involving the murders of Paul Thompson and Sean Brown to the London Supreme Court. The Coroner in the Brown case issued a gist simply acknowledging that intelligence reports linked multiple British agents in the murder, while the Coroner in the Thompson case was blocked from issuing even a gist approved by Chief Constable Jon Boutcher. Will the new disclosure regime, mean that families are no longer denied such crucial information about collusion?
One of the fundamental reasons for the lack of trust in the ICRIR were objections about staffing by former senior RUC members. Families believe there is clear evidence that collusion went far higher than local RUC level. Will new statutory conflict of interest standards and the requirement that Hilary Benn confer with an advisory panel before making appointments, insure that families can trust the impartiality of investigators and staff?
As noted above, my reaction to the Joint Legacy Framework is one of cautious welcome. It does have the potential to at last give the truth to grieving families, who have endured all efforts to deny them justice. These families must be commended for having overcome every obstacle to reach this point.
However, understanding the past and what victims’ relatives have gone through, it would be foolish to take British good faith for granted. As always, we should stand behind these victims’ families as they wait to see the final version of British legislation, and, crucially, to test whether new laws are applied in a spirit which finally gives them truth, after so much bad faith and injustice.
The inspiration behind this 50 year legacy battle, has always been victims’ relatives, who would not accept being denied the truth about murdered loved ones. All families are equally entitled to justice, but the injustice cut deeper, when state agencies with a duty to uphold justice collaborate in murder cover-ups because the victims were murdered by British state forces or state agents.
When Paras murdered a Catholic priest, a grandmother and eight others at Ballymurymurphy or fourteen civil rights marchers on Bloody Sunday, heroic family and friends overcame decades of denials and delays to get vindication at the Saville Inquiry, then a Ballymurphy Inquest. Even today, the prosecution of Soldier F for Bloody Sunday fuels demands for “special protections” for former British troopers who may have gunned down Irish victims.
When Britain shifted tactics, using state agents to aid, abet and sometimes even direct loyalist murders, they left behind families, like those of Pat Finucane or Sean Brown, who believe public inquiries are needed to uncover the extent of crown collusion in the murder of their loved ones.
The Stormont House Agreement on legacy mechanisms was reached in December 2014, but never legislated. It was reaffirmed with legislation promised within 100 days, under New Decade New Approach in January 2020. Nothing followed. Meanwhile families had taken their fight to the European and local Courts, inquests, civil actions and the Ombudsman. Truth was slowly emerging.
British officials, who claimed they could not enact Stormont House legislation without unanimous consent by Stormont political parties, passed a new Legacy Act over unanimous opposition. They took away inquests and ombudsman reports, attempted an Amnesty with British troopers in mind, and sidelined solicitors and human rights groups by funneling everything into an ICRIR Commission to put a lid on damning revelations.
The new agreement, itself, begs the question. Why has Britain refused to allow the Courts or legacy mechanisms to give these families truth, unless it had much to hide?
As we await enactment of new laws, obvious questions must be posed.
Keir Starmer has referenced “special protections” for former British troopers and the proposed statute requires investigations be “balanced” and “proportionate”. Will “special protections” become a thinly disguised amnesty for troopers who committed murder, or an excuse to block genuine investigations because of prior participation in sham investigations? Will “balanced” and “proportionate” mean limiting investigations into crown force killings to balance them in proportion to investigations of Republicans?
British officials have employed a “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” (NCND) policy, which amounts to a blanket national security veto suppressing disclosure of crucial information about the role of paid British agents in Troubles killings. Hilary Benn has even taken cases involving the murders of Paul Thompson and Sean Brown to the London Supreme Court. The Coroner in the Brown case issued a gist simply acknowledging that intelligence reports linked multiple British agents in the murder, while the Coroner in the Thompson case was blocked from issuing even a gist approved by Chief Constable Jon Boutcher. Will the new disclosure regime, mean that families are no longer denied such crucial information about collusion?
One of the fundamental reasons for the lack of trust in the ICRIR were objections about staffing by former senior RUC members. Families believe there is clear evidence that collusion went far higher than local RUC level. Will new statutory conflict of interest standards and the requirement that Hilary Benn confer with an advisory panel before making appointments, insure that families can trust the impartiality of investigators and staff?
As noted above, my reaction to the Joint Legacy Framework is one of cautious welcome. It does have the potential to at last give the truth to grieving families, who have endured all efforts to deny them justice. These families must be commended for having overcome every obstacle to reach this point.
However, understanding the past and what victims’ relatives have gone through, it would be foolish to take British good faith for granted. As always, we should stand behind these victims’ families as they wait to see the final version of British legislation, and, crucially, to test whether new laws are applied in a spirit which finally gives them truth, after so much bad faith and injustice.
 |
| Martin Galvin is long time Irish American activist. |
No comments