subscribe to the RSS Feed

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Ballymurphy Massacre Families attended the Coroners court in Belfast for preliminary hearing which starts the process for inquests

Posted by Jim on March 6, 2014

by John Teggart  

 

 

Ballymurphy Massacre Families attended the Coroners court in Belfast for preliminary hearing which starts the process for inquests.

In November 2011 the families succeeded in persuading the newly appointed Attorney-General that new inquests should be held.

Speaking after the hearing John Teggart, son of Danny Teggart said, today is a major step forward for our campaign, it’s a great day for the families. it’s the start of a legal process that we believe will get to the truth about the death of our loved ones, we have worked tirelessly for many years and today we are on the road to Justice.

We have the full support of Taoiseach Enda Kenny who will be challenging David Cameron on the British Governments position.

The Ballymurphy case raises serious questions regarding human rights abuses committed by the British Army and the culture of impunity that allowed members of British state forces to routinely carry out violent actions without fear of being held accountable.

Those abuses are not officially acknowledged until some time after they have been carried out. The Bloody Sunday families can testify to this assertion.
Here, in the struggle between official and unofficial versions of the truth, the law, and by extension the agencies of the criminal justice system, were often appropriated by the British government as a tool to deny the abuses.

The extensive human rights abuses committed by the British Army would never have happened but for the fact that a compliant prosecution and unionist judiciary promoted the growth of a culture of impunity in which members of the security forces could routinely break the law and present perjured evidence before the courts.
In 1970 an agreement was reached between the General Officer Commanding the British army (GOC) and the Chief Constable of the RUC whereby in an investigation into the use of lethal force by military personnel, the interviewing of soldiers, would be carried out by the Royal Military Police, another branch of the army ‘family tree’. The agreement continued until it was abolished after the imposition of Direct Rule in 1972 and the establishment of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
During the period when the agreement was in force, soldiers who engaged in the use of lethal force were not subject to the rigours of the legal system, nor were they rendered accountable, in any way, for their use of lethal force. The RUC/British army agreement was a significant usurpation of the police responsibility for the investigation of crime when the suspects were soldiers.

These procedures were hopelessly inadequate as a method for investigating the criminal conduct of soldiers has been expressly recognised by the High Court in Belfast in the case of Thompson v. Secretary of State.

The soldiers involved in firing live rounds in Ballymurphy in August 1971 were interviewed by the RMP. There was no attempt to probe these accounts, nor was there any attempt made to address the inconsistencies between the various soldiers’ accounts. It is, moreover, apparent that there was nothing approaching a proper RUC investigation into the incident. Whilst there was civilian evidence to contradict the soldiers’ accounts, particularly as regards their justification for firing live rounds, these accounts were never put to the soldiers and their accounts were simply accepted without question. Inconsistencies in the soldiers’ accounts were deliberately withheld from the Coroner.

In addition, the fact that soldiers didn’t have to give evidence to the Coroner’s Court, the lack of pre-inquest disclosure to the families or their legal representatives, and the inability of the Coroner’s Court to reach ‘findings’ meant that the original inquests into those murdered in the Ballymurphy Massacre were flawed.

The legal regulation of inquests in the North of Ireland has been subject to penetrating changes since the original inquests. These changes to the inquest system have, in large part, been due to legal challenges by the families of victims of state killings. Those who have suffered the abuses often learn from this and employ the law as a tool to focus attention on the violation.

It was in this context that the Ballymurphy Massacre families made an application to the Attorney General to exercise his powers under section 14 of the Coroner’s Act (1959) to reopen the inquests. The Attorney General has directed the Coroner to reopen inquests into the deaths of Fr Hugh Mullan, Francis Quinn, Daniel Teggart, Joan Connolly, Joseph Murphy, Noel Phillips, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John McKerr. The application by the family of Paddy McCarthy,who have never had an inquest into the death of their loved one, was not granted. The Ballymurphy Massacre Committee will continue to gather evidence and witness testimony in relation to the circumstances of the death of Mr McCarthy and intend make a further application at a later date to the Attorney General.

The fresh inquests must now comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which means that they will be considerably different creatures than their predecessors. In addition…
• British soldiers involved in the killings are now compellable witnesses
• The House of Lords has made it clear that the Coroner dealing with an inquest now has a generous discretion in relation to the remit of an inquest and that ‘the purpose of an inquest is to investigate fully and explore publicly the facts pertaining to a death occurring in suspicious, unnatural or violent circumstances, or where the deceased was in the custody of the state,
Whilst legal processes may be imperfect, it does not mean that the law is not an important element of a wider truth-finding process. It is only through legal processes that the rule of law can be restored. This is especially so where the legal system, including flawed inquests, has been employed by the state in pursuit of its political objectives during the conflict.
The British army committed murder and abuses of human rights in Ballymurphy in August 1971 is an undeniable, if much denied, truth. That truth must be set free to prevent the casualty of its recurrence and to allow some measure of communal healing. This is not a simple task, but fresh inquests which are compliant with Article 2 of the ECHR (especially in the absence of any other legal mechanisms or truth recovery process) can play a pivotal role to assist in the preservation of an accurate historical account of the events of 9-11 August 1971.

Ballymurphy inquest started Monday 3rd March,

Posted by Jim on March 4, 2014

The families of 11 people killed by the British Army in Ballymurphy in 1971 will attend Belfast Courts for a for a preliminary hearing to start new inquest into the killings. { red brick  building }

The victim’s families had  asked the Attorney General, under the Coroners Act, to open a new inquest because new material has become available about the massacre.
Among those who died included a mother of eight and a Catholic priest.

New evidence obtained by the families include eyewitness statements, archives from the church and inquest verdicts.

Accounts from the Church include a “serving member of the British army, a member of the British Navy who returned to his ship shortly after the shootings, and an ex-Irish Guardsman”.

In the past, the British Army have claimed they opened fire after being shot at by republicans during the army’s Operation Demetrius.

Operation Demetrius (or internment as it is more commonly known) was launched by the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary and involved arresting and interning (without trial) people accused of being paramilitary members.

The families have ,full support from SDLP ,Sinn Fein and members of Alience Party forthe  new inquest.

The inquest is also supported by Bishop Noel Treanor of Co. Down.

Families will walk to court at 10.10 am.hearing starts 10.30 am
John Teggart 07512166867………07860382930

The Squalor of Peace

Posted by Jim on

 

Guest writer Antaine Mac Dhomhnaill, a South Fermanagh republican, with a piece on Sinn Fein’s dirty peace.

 

 

Certainly the most energetic proponents of the alleged Peace Process were POW’s and On the Runs. Why would they not be?

A war they had proven their commitment to complete at all and any cost had been concluded by a leadership they were loyal to. It had ended on the pretext of impending victory for the Republican aspiration.

What they did not know was that the leadership they obeyed were less than loyal to them and had sold their futures to the whims of Unionists and the British establishment for petty parochial power and a potential power sharing position in a distant future Free State assembly.

The prisoners who were released early along with all of the thousands who served their full sentences? Their employment prospects thwarted because Sinn Féin had failed to secure the wiping of “criminal Records” (sic). This determines that for many roles they are deemed unemployable; outside quangos, private special interest groups or companies that are controlled by the Sinn Féin network and funded by the British Government.

Prisoners on Licence? We have learned that should they express their Nationhood outside the terms of fascist Stormont they will be systematically removed from society like Martin Corey and interned by a Viceroy; in this instance there is nothing anyone can do, the Viceroy is superior in authority than all of Stormont and it’s various agreements. Loyalty to Stormont is maintained on a threat of return to prison.

On the Runs? On the Runs have been betrayed the most. Gerry Adams conceded on Saturday that there was never any agreement at Weston Park to liberate OTR’s from the threat of prosecution and their exile. There was of course talk of some commitment by the Free State and Britain to resolve the issue but no agreement that could be implemented ; a “pledge” to end pursuance of OTR’s.

So what of these letters? A list was given to the British and the British sent letters to those on that list who were not wanted. A basic legal right any solicitor can secure for anyone pondering their legal status.

Those who are wanted? Well they will be pursued as they always have been and for all the promises and hope that the decommissioning of the IRA and standing down of the Nations aspirations would liberate them from exile and allow them to return home? Gone.

Perhaps now there will be something agreed for OTR’s but not before inquiries in to the massacring of our people in Ballymurphy or Derry cease along with inquiries into Collusion.

It was a dirty war – but compared to the squalor of this so-called peace it stands almost cleansed.

Some republicans vexed by secretive process

Posted by Jim on March 1, 2014

The disclosures made in John Downey’s case could have altered the
course of Gerry McGeough’s trial or appeal, according to his legal
team, as the evidence presented at the Old Bailey could have confirmed
that 216 “pardons” had been issued to republicans.

During the 2007 assembly elections, the veteran republican stood
against Sinn Fein as an independent candidate in Fermanagh/South
Tyrone. He was arrested as he left the election count centre in Omagh
and was subsequently charged with attempting a border IRA attack which
killed a British Army (UDR) man in 1981.

In 2011 he was tried and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, but after
extensive legal efforts was released after two years in January 2013,
in compliance with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
Mr McGeough has previously said that he was given assurances by Sinn
Fein’s Gerry Kelly in 2000 that he would not be charged with any
offence if he returned to the Six Counties.

“This vindicates our position,” he said on Thursday. “We have been
saying all along that these amnesties existed and I was being singled
out for persecution because of my views.”

Mr McGeough said that during his trial the British government was asked
for disclosure of documents on the amnesty issue but denied they
existed. He believes those who knew about the existence of the
amnesties are involved in a cover up.

“There’s a DUP, Sinn Fein and MI5 axis running this whole thing,” he
argued. “For the DUP to say they are surprised is play acting ahead of
elections.”

The former Sinn Fein ard comhairle [high council] member believes he
was singled out for arrest in 2007 because of his opposition to Sinn
Fein in Tyrone.

“This was a means of blocking me because I was a political threat,” he
said. “It was a huge injustice done to me and my family.”

Mr McGeough’s solicitor Aiden Carlin said as a result of this week’s
disclosures, the case would now be referred to the Criminal Cases
Review Commission.

IRSP IN THE DARK

The Irish Republican Socialist Party has said none of the ‘letters of
assurance’ given to Sinn Fein supporters were ever received by anyone
linked with it.

Party spokesman Michael McLaughlin said the process was a “murky back
room deal” which had left INLA Volunteers exposed.

“No republican loyal to the republican socialist movement received
these cover letter,” he said.

“The murky back room deal between republican OTRs loyal to the Sinn
Fein leadership and British establishment sums up the squalid nature of
how society currently deals with legacy of the war.

“No attempts have been made to inclusively deal the OTRs, loyalist or
republican, and until such a time we collectively and sincerely find an
independent non-party political approach we are doomed to repeat the
cycle of mistrust and instability.”

“Everyone and their dog knew full well that provisional republicans
were given immunity whilst republicans not loyal to Sinn Fein were
hounded from pillar to post.”

 

There were also questions about those Sinn Fein figures who received
royal pardons, believed to number between 30 and 40 individuals. In
light of unionist demands for the OTR letters to be rescinded, the
distinction may be significant, as royal pardons cannot be overturned
or abrogated.

Mr McLaughlin said there had been several situations recently when
clearly political motivated prosecutions had been instigated against
those opposed to Sinn Fein.

“A key factor in the debate we need to collectively have is on the
powers British intelligence agencies have and their control over all
aspects of all political institutions.

“Faceless intelligence operative can sit in Palace Barracks and
determine which combatant and from which political tradition to
prosecute”

“Because the current approach to the legacy of the past is not
independent or transparent it allows these murky intelligence forces to
continue to use issues like ‘OTRs’ as political weapons within all the
current institutions of Stormont.”

Now that the “Downey” case has opened a can of worms it now proves that the NIO, SF and the Unionists were complicit in Gerry McGeough’s politically motivated arrest and incarceration.

Posted by Jim on February 27, 2014

The letter below was sent to Mr. Gerry Adams and to Mr. Kelly on February 13, 2012 from the Free Gerry McGeough Campaign Committee Chairpersons:
THE LAST THREE PARAGRAPHS TELL IT ALL!
February 13, 2012
REPLY TO SINN FEIN FROM GERRY McGEOUGH CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
A chairde,Recently several prominent supporters of the campaign to free Gerry McGeough forwarded emails sent from Sinn Fein for our comments. These emails say that Sinn Fein has called for Gerry McGeough’s release from Maghaberry and therefore our justice campaign should “focus our efforts on the British government, which is responsible for his imprisonment, and on the Irish government, which is a co-signatory to the Weston Park agreement.”

Gerry McGeough has been imprisoned by the British for more than a year at Maghaberry. Clearly the combined weight of court challenges, calls from political parties including Sinn Fein , together with pressure through any and all other political mechanisms, have not yet been sufficient to compel the British to free him. Like any other justice campaign, we can only try for greater efforts by any and every source open to us, until the British give Gerry McGeough the freedom to which we all agree he is entitled.

The primary focus of efforts to pressure the British crown has been legal challenges in British courts, thus far including an abuse of process application, a Diplock trial defense, appeals, and judicial review. Even now a ruling on his pending judicial review is imminent, and could mean freedom for Gerry McGeough.

Given what has already occurred in his case, and indeed in the long history of British courts dealing with Irish Republican cases, there is no assurance of justice for Gerry McGeough. If the crown judge rules against him, the only alternative means of increasing pressure on the British will be to ask more from political parties. As a party which includes a Deputy First Minister, and whose backing helped grant David Ford a renewed term as Stormont Justice Minister, Sinn Fein’s help would be pivotal.

However, the campaign is by no means limited to Sinn Fein. Eamon O’Cuiv, of Fianna Fail, and several SDLP members have visited Gerry McGeough at Maghaberry, and pledged support. Their support was only enlisted when members of Sinn Fein who support Gerry McGeough advised that their requests within party channels for effective rather than token action were stonewalled.

We then received emails and read published letters criticizing Gerry McGeough and our campaign, for not trusting exclusively Sinn Fein; and for accepting help from Fianna Fail and the SDLP despite past policies of those parties regarding Republicans. We will continue to lobby all potential channels of support that might assist in pressuring the British crown directly or through the Irish government.

Gerry McGeough is imprisoned by the British on charges that he joined the IRA in 1975 and that he was wounded in an IRA engagement with a member of the notorious British Ulster Defense Regiment, during the time of the Hunger Strike of 1981.The evidence trotted out against him included medical testimony and photographs of bullet wounds he suffered as an IRA Volunteer, as well as nearly 8 years of imprisonment for IRA activities in Germany and the United States. Given this background, and Britain’s desire to use this case as a precedent against other Republicans, it is difficult to see any mechanism for compelling the crown to release Gerry McGeough without Sinn Fein intensifying its efforts.

We also received inquiries about how much they had already done for Gerry McGeough. We hesitated before making this reply. The campaign is supported by a broad spectrum. It includes Sinn Fein members and party supporters, as well as others with very different views. The campaign is united by the one aim of freedom for Gerry McGeough. We want to work constructively with Sinn Fein and all others who can help win his freedom. We have no other agenda.

We were reluctant to clarify the record regarding Gerry McGeough, since an honest response might create further difficulties or even be cited as a reason to do nothing more on the issue. It now appears, given the decision to publish this correspondence in AP/RN, that we have no alternative.

We wish to acknowledge again that after Gerry McGeough’s arrest in 2007, Michelle Gildernew wrote one of the character reference letters which were introduced during his bail hearing, and this letter was helpful to McGeough’s solicitors. On a couple of occasions, during the four years of court proceedings, members of Sinn Fein attended the trial for Gerry and his co-defendant.

However there was a telling disparity between these actions and the far more frequent, vocal, and visible interventions by prominent DUP members, led by Arlene Foster and Maurice Morrow against Gerry McGeough.

DUP intervention, climaxed by Foster and Morrow’s presence in court to influence and celebrate the verdict, was patently obvious to the public and Diplock judge and conveyed a clear signal that the case against McGeough meant far more to the DUP, than to any other political faction

It is also appreciated that Sinn Fein members, most recently Ray McCartney in December, visited Gerry McGeough amongst other Republican prisoners at Maghaberry and said that his case, among others, and the protest against brutal H-Block like strip-searches, were high on the agenda. However, David Ford, who presides over these injustices, then had his term extended by Sinn Fein in partnership with the DUP, and was thereby empowered to continue these injustices.

We accept that the British broke the Weston Park agreement by jailing Gerry McGeough on thirty year old charges. Britain’s stance in prosecuting former IRA members while conferring an apparent amnesty for murders by British troopers or crown constables is hypocritical. Sinn Fein, better than anyone, knows the difference between token statements meant to do no more than placate supporters, and effective action on issues of importance. Without Sinn Fein, as the representative of former IRA members during these talks, demanding that “unambiguous” pledges be honored, it is apparent that the crown feels free to break its word with impunity.

Gerry McGeough’s solicitors urged the British crown court to follow the reading of Weston Park advanced by Sinn Fein. The British and Stormont justice ministry rejected this interpretation out of hand. The trial was suspended pending an abuse of process hearing. No one from Sinn Fein took the witness stand on Gerry McGeough’s behalf. His solicitors, who have strong contacts with Sinn Fein, were forced to call a loyalist, William Smith, to testify for Gerry McGeough. The application was denied and the Diplock trial continued. We are left to speculate whether testimony from any Sinn Fein representative about what was agreed at Weston Park might have altered the outcome and halted the trial before Gerry McGeough was tried and jailed.

Now an application for a judicial review has been lodged, and a decision is pending. In addition to the Weston Park pledges, McGeough contends that he should be eligible for immediate release because the 8 years in jail in Germany and America should be applied to satisfy the 2 year GFA release requirements. His solicitors cited a dozen comparable cases where Republicans imprisoned in other jurisdictions had their time credited by means of a pardon (Royal Prerogative of Mercy). They were able to obtain and produce copies of these pardons which were attached as exhibits in support.

In making this application, Gerry McGeough, in a sworn affidavit, said that while an elected member of the Sinn Fein Ard Chomairle, he often spoke to Gerry Kelly on the negotiations regarding his own case as well as other On-the-Runs (OTRS). McGeough attested that he was specifically told by Gerry Kelly that he was on the list of cases being negotiated, and finally told that he was free to go home to Tyrone without fear of arrest or charges. Gerry Kelly says that “this was not the case.”

Gerry McGeough was so sure of this conversation that he not only returned to Tyrone for the first time in years, but began public preparations to move his family there, including applying for planning permission, building a house, enrolling his children in school and moving around openly. McGeough’s solicitors contend that he was removed from the list some time after he left Sinn Fein, and arrested because he ran as an Independent Republican.

After this application was argued, the crown judge directed that the record be kept open for an affidavit from Gerry Kelly. Kelly had previously declined to cooperate with McGeough’s solicitors in preparing an affidavit that would have supported him. Our understanding is that Kelly’s solicitors on January 12th sent a letter which was such that McGeough’s solicitors had to incorporate it in a submission that made reference to the “obvious tension” between McGeough’s and Kelly’s positions.

Gerry McGeough, now in his 50s, has suffered heart attacks since his arrest in 2007. Last week he was hospitalized again for his heart ailment and will need further surgery. He is separated from his wife and four young children and imprisoned at Maghaberry in conditions which can only exacerbate his medical problems. He is in jail on 30 year old charges that were clearly part of the IRA’s struggle against British rule. It is difficult to imagine the frustrations that even someone who has served 8 years in jail, must feel to be held in a British prison in the conditions at Maghaberry on decades old charges, in the midst of what we are often told is a new political dispensation. It must be especially hurtful, when members of Sinn Fein or supportive organizations in America, advise that they have been discouraged from campaigning for more pressure to free Gerry McGeough, and are told to “focus their efforts elsewhere”

Slan
FREE GERRY McGEOUGH CAMPAIGN