2 weeks Ago By Ben Lowry
( Click here to read it: ‘Government veto on Troubles commission disclosure ruled unlawful ’) The Appeal Court in Belfast found that government powers of veto as to how information given to the the work of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) were unlawful. It also found that the ICRIR does not provide victims with adequate means to participate in its processes. Advertisement Advertisement Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Belfast News Letter, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more.
It is a complicated ruling that will take some time to absorb. Even the UK government says that it is hard to understand: a spokesperson said: "We note the court’s ruling and will take the necessary time to consider our next steps on this complex judgment." But bear with me while I try to point out a few basic points.
For all its complexity, I think this ruling will worsen what I have for years been calling the legacy scandal, in which the whole apparatus of the UK state is turning against the UK security forces who over three decades prevented civil war in the face of terrorism in which the IRA was by far the most prolific killing machine. Yet instead of uproar over this, I feel that we will soon see unionist politicians again condemning the legacy structures of the last government and so behave in a way that enables to the Irish government to say that all the parties in Northern Ireland are united against London on legacy. Last month I wrote about this utter scandal ( click here to read it – unionists have helped reinstate a pro IRA approach to legacy ).
Advertisement Advertisement Since then things have again got worse, due to the decision to hold a massive, multi-million pound inquiry into one murder out of 3,500 or so – that of Pat Finucane. The present government says his murder was unique, and hides behind commitments made in 2001 by the UK government without pointing out that it was the Finucane campaigners who turned down a public inquiry under the terms of the 2005 Inquiries Act, something they are now prepared to accept. Scandalously, taxpayers in the interim paid for a massive review of the case by one of the world’s most distinguished human rights lawyers, the late Desmond de Silva, that ran to almost 1,000 pages.
This was on top of other expensive investigations, such as that by John Stevens. And yet the ever feeble UK government (and I am referring to successive governments, not just the latest feeble administration) did not so much as hint at this reason why the commitment to hold an inquiry was not carried out. But what this latest ruling does is, in effect, put pressure on the government to lose further control over what state documents it releases.
Of course to point this out invites cries of being an apologist for state secrecy. As anyone who reflects on the situation for five seconds will admit, there are pieces of information that have to remain secret for national security reasons. And removing the government’s veto will greatly worsen an already stark imbalance between the existence of state information, which is recorded by responsible societies such as the UK, and the information held by terrorist organisations, which is invariably concealed, indeed smothered in lies.
Advertisement Advertisement There is another thing that can be taken from the way in which the courts have, to an extent, taken control of legacy. There are endless references to Article Two of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which protects right to life. This is cited in a way to justify the gross imbalance in investigations into state forces.
Once again the News Letter was alone in asking the ICRIR recently about the problems with such a focus on Article Two. Articles such as Articles 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (right to fair trial) are increasingly important to ex security forces in having their rights to a fair hearing respected while terrorists enjoy a de facto amnesty (above all in an Irish Republic that had the nerve to sue the UK for its proposed partial amnesty). We put this to ICRIR, who just replied: “Whilst we have regard to all of the rights under the European Convention, as an investigative body we have particular responsibilities under Article 2 and 3.
” Advertisement Advertisement Here is a link to a video I took of Hilary Benn in July, when I put some of these concerns to him . I did not feel he replied properly. There is another issue that I will look at in coming months: how politicians will come over the years to see that the UK has to leave the ECHR to protect its borders and stop outrages such as terrorists being allowed to chase the state legally.
But NI will not be allowed to leave, leading to a fresh Irish Sea border. • Ben Lowry (@BenLowry2) is News Letter editor.
