State Violence (26 page)

All the information that has been disclosed about Pat Finucane's murder would suggest that the decision to kill him was taken by British Intelligence agents. It is clear that the use of UDA death squads has and is being employed by the British authorities for their own sinister purposes.

One welcomes the recent proscribing of the UDA.

The present inquest system in the north of Ireland is inadequate. It is not a large demand to ask for instant reform. It would show some goodwill on the part of the British government in the matter of law and justice. Bereaved relatives are denied elementary standards of justice.

The DPP should give reasons for decisions not to prosecute in cases involving the security forces. He should be answerable to the citizens of the state.

Fewer than 8% of the large RUC force is Catholic. The police force needs restructuring to include nationalists and republicans who are strong elements in the society of Northern Ireland. One suspects that the violation of human rights on the part of the state is linked to this scandalous situation.

One would like an official explanation of ‘detention in military custody' which is practised when soldiers are remanded pending trial.

Submission to Initiative '92 and the Opsahl Commission. An abbreviated form was published by Relatives for Justice in 1991.

Relatives of those killed unjustly and murdered directly by security forces, and those killed indirectly by the state through collusion (witness the Nelson affair) wish to communicate their feeling that justice is formerly and officially perverted.

1.
Callous attitude towards the victims. The RUC either never inform the relatives of the deaths of those killed unjustly or murdered by security forces or they act in a cruel manner. Examples – Leo Norney, Anthony Hughes, Kevin McGovern.

The relatives of these victims are targeted for consistent harassment by RUC, UDR and British army.

2.
There is no urgent and vigorous investigation of these killings. Security forces are not subject to the same interrogation procedure as others. There is suspicion of lack of impartiality and persistence in the investigations.

3.
The DPP is shrouded in secrecy. He should be responsible to the citizens of the state. He should give reasons for decisions not to prosecute. His independence in ‘state' killings is flawed since killings involving the security forces are discussed with the attorney general.

4.
Inquests in Northern Ireland are inadequate and designed not to reveal the truth. At least in Britain there is a verdict and the killers would have to appear at the inquest. Legal aid should be provided both in Northern Ireland and Britain.

5.
Collusion in the name of the ‘fight against terrorists' has lead to murder on the part of British Intelligence and security forces. The administrative bodies share guilt. Confidence in the administration of justice is eroded. Nationalists feel that collusion is indicated in the lack of prosecution of loyalist murderers in south Derry/east Tyrone, Craigavon and north Belfast; this ultimately leads to ‘revenge killings'.

1.
Would the Northern Ireland Office supply reasons why there has not been prosecution in this category of killings if given a sample list of cases?

2.
Demands for a public inquiry into these cases have always been turned down by the authorities. Necessity for a public international inquiry.

3.
Change of law regarding (a) DPP (b) Inquests (c) use of legal force (d) provision of autopsy report as of right (e) independent forensic and autopsy.

On 23 January 1997 I submitted a report on human rights in Northern Ireland to Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman, House Committee on International Relations, United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC. In the report I included two examples of unjust killings to illustrate the violation of the right to life. The shooting of a civilian, Aidan McAnespie, on 21 February 1988, when walking by a British army post at Aughnacloy, County Tyrone, is here related by his sister, Eilish. I give an account of the Gibraltar shootings of unarmed IRA members by the SAS on 6 March 1988. It is written by Niall Farrell, the brother of Mairéad, one of the victims. He is secretary of Relatives for Justice.

It is of paramount importance that the killing of my brother, Aidan McAnespie, on 21 February 1988, is not viewed as an isolated incident but rather as the result of systematic and routine victimisation for several years by British crown forces. These include members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the British army.

My brother, Aidan McAnespie, was the youngest of a family of six children. He was born in Aughnacloy, a predominantly loyalist village on the border with the Republic of Ireland. The area historically had a high unemployment rate, that is, for those nationalists living there. As a consequence, Aidan looked for work across the border and was fortunate enough to get a job in a poultry processing plant in Monaghan town, in the Republic of Ireland, some ten miles south of Aughnacloy. To go to work each day, Aidan had to pass through a permanent British army checkpoint at the southern side of the village. As a result, the security forces became familiar with him and often asked him to remove his car from the road for what was termed a ‘routine search'. They would then take the car apart, removing door panels and wheels. They would also search through his lunch with their bare hands saying, ‘You'll be late for work today Aidan'. Aidan made complaints to his trade union about these incidents and they made representations on his behalf, but the harassment continued unabated. On other occasions they would ask him to remove his coat, shoes and socks in the rain. When he refused, they would put him on the ground and one soldier stood on his throat while another pulled off his shoes and socks. Aidan made complaints to the local RUC station.

It was not unusual for Aidan to be taken into the British army base for a vehicle search two or three times a week and the car pulled apart. The harassment got so bad that he stopped driving through the checkpoint; instead he would drive to the filling station just south of the checkpoint and would phone my mother. She would then cycle down through the town and out past the checkpoint and walk back through with Aidan. On one occasion a soldier shouted after them, ‘Are you trying to protect your son Mrs McAnespie?'

Aidan contacted newspapers seeking the protection that publicity might have given him and one national newspaper carried a story describing him as the most harassed person in Ireland. He could have wallpapered his room with official complaints made to the RUC both through solicitors and the local parish priest. Aidan's life revolved around the continual threat of harassment and physical violence at best and the real threat of being killed at worst. A soldier stopped my father a year before the shooting and asked, ‘Are you Aidan's father?' When he said he was the soldier said, ‘We have a bullet here for him'.

On 21 February 1988, Aidan parked his car at the northern side of the checkpoint and walked towards the local GAA pitch, which was just south of the checkpoint. He had only walked three hundred yards when a single bullet from a heavy calibre machine-gun cut him down, in the prime of his life, on a lovely sunny afternoon, while on his way to a Gaelic football match. Aidan's life was taken, his killer watched him walk towards the football pitch, aimed and fired to kill. This is the view of our family and many community and church leaders. The then Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, described the killing as murder.

In stark contrast the British army described the incident as a tragic accident. They claimed, firstly, that the gun used was being passed from one soldier to another when it was accidentally discharged. This account later changed to one of accidental discharge when the gun was in the process of being cleaned. Because the Northern Ireland office's statement of what happened supported this version, all subsequent investigations carried out by the RUC were mobilised to support this explanation of events. In actual fact, the security force explanation was so incredible that they had to create evidence to support their claim. For example, eye-witnesses saw a man coming out of a sanger from which Aidan was shot, wearing casual clothes and sports shoes. The next day the British army had a number of their people painting the checkpoint dressed in casual clothing. Aidan's car was parked close to the checkpoint in a nationalist housing estate. On the day of the funeral eye-witnesses saw a man remove it. Our family phoned the local RUC station to report it missing. They said they knew nothing about it but to try CID (Criminal Investigation Department) in Dungannon. CID in Dungannon were not aware of the missing car. We then phoned the local police to report the stolen car. The press got to hear about the missing car and shortly after speaking to the local police, a local journalist could tell the family that the car was removed by police for its safety. It seems incredible that of all the cars parked in the housing estate this was the only car in some kind of danger.

In addition, the army claimed, that due to the accidental discharge of the weapon, three shots were fired, one of which ricocheted off the road hitting Aidan. Local people living nearby say the army reconstructed this account of things when, as darkness fell, a flashing light was placed at the spot where Aidan was shot and three shots were heard fired. It is widely believed that the army fired the shots to mark the road to support their ricochet theory. When challenged by the press, the army claimed that they came under fire from terrorists, a claim denied by the IRA and local people nearby who say no attack of any kind took place.

A soldier, David J. Holden, was charged with unlawful killing. While on this charge he was allowed to go home to his family in England. Approximately six months later all charges were dropped.

At Aidan's inquest, the coroner, Roger McLernon, said the death was a cause of ‘profound regret' and ‘was avoidable and should have been avoided'. The RUC stated at the inquest, and it was repeated by the coroner, that there was no suggestion that Aidan had ever been involved in any form of illegal activity. Guardsman Holden was not compelled to attend the inquest. The coroner advised the jury that, although the soldier was entitled under law not to attend, his unsworn statement should be treated with caution. The only other soldier in the sanger when the fatal shot was fired was conveniently absent without leave for the six months previous to the inquest. The coroner said this was ‘amazing' and of ‘profound concern'.

Our family was not present at this inquest because we had no faith in its ability to discover the truth. We have a series of unanswered questions: Why did the gun that killed Aidan have ‘a live round in its breach while being cleaned'? Why was it cocked? Why was the safety catch off? How could David Holden's hands still be slippery and wet ten minutes after he finished washing sanger walls? Is it possible to accidentally exert nine pounds of pressure on a weapon's trigger, pulling it backwards and upwards? Why was Holden out of uniform, wearing what appeared to be a track suit when he left the sanger under police escort after the shooting? How could the Northern Ireland Office release a definitive statement of the shooting less than an hour after it had taken place? Was this a rigorous investigation?

It must be remembered that this is in no way the only incident of its type. The SAS, the British army and the RUC have been involved in the killing of many nationalists in controversial circumstances. On the day of Aidan's funeral the only serving member of the British army, Private Ian Thain, convicted for the murder of an Irish person, Kidso Reilly, was set free after serving just over two years of a life sentence. He returned to active service (in fact he was never discharged from the British army). Holden was subsequently released and was charged before a military tribunal with not taking proper care of a weapon and was disciplined. He was later discharged on medical grounds and is a free man.

On 6 March 1988 Mairéad Farrell, Dan McCann and Seán Savage were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British army's elite regiment, the SAS. While all three were members of the IRA they were all unarmed and could have been arrested. Indeed, independent witnesses stated that Mairéad, who was shot eight times, and Dan, shot five times, had their hands up in surrender when shot. Witnesses to Seán's killing – he was shot sixteen times – said he was given no chance to surrender and was shot as he lay on the ground. In all three instances the scientific evidence pointed to the fact that all three were finished off on the ground.

These killings had all the hallmarks of other Shoot-to-Kill deaths carried out by the British security forces in Northern Ireland. The families of the dead decided to challenge these killings through the courts. Justice was not forthcoming through the British legal system, so seven long years later their case was heard by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

The court in a landmark decision found that Mairéad Farrell, Dan McCann and Seán Savage had been unlawfully killed, that the British government was guilty of having breached Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Right to Life. In its judgement the court stated that the actions of the authorities lacked ‘the degree of caution in the use of firearms to be expected from law enforcement personnel in a democratic society'.
[1]

The British government responded angrily to the verdict. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Heseltine stated: ‘If we were faced with similar circumstances as those in Gibraltar, I have not the slightest doubt the same decisions would be taken again'.
[2]