Why 2025 is the time for Irish Government to act on legacy
Sam McBride, Sunday Life, December 29th, 2024
AS FAMILIES SEEK ANSWERS, PRESSURE IS NOW BUILDING ON AUTHORITIES IN THE REPUBLIC
FOR years, Ireland has been able to look down its nose at Britain on the legacy of the Troubles. It has condemned collusion, botched cover-ups, and an amnesty intended to protect former soldiers from prosecution. But 2025 might be the year when it's the Irish Government facing increasingly hard questions.
London's handling of Troubles issues has been so inept that it has dismayed almost everyone. Unionists accuse it of disproportionately pursuing elderly former soldiers while leaving senior republicans untouched.
Republicans accuse it of doing everything it can to frustrate prosecutions or the emergence of unpalatable truths. Many others are dismayed that almost 27 years after the Good Friday Agreement, the victims who suffered the most have been repeatedly betrayed.
There are many valid criticisms of Britain's actions. It is impossible to look past the fact that so long after the end of the Troubles, most of its victims have neither had justice nor ever been able to trade that for the truth.
But there's another aspect to this which is increasingly difficult to ignore: The Irish Government's failure to help victims. Events over the next 12 months are going to draw renewed focus to this.
Seven months ago, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) came into being. The body was part of the Legacy Act which included a de facto amnesty for killers. While Sir Keir Starmer is repealing that provision, it tainted the ICRIR to an extent which, for many victims, is indelible.
The body, headed by former NI Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan (right), faces a formidable challenge to convince the public it is independent, that it can fearlessly uncover sensitive intelligence material, and that it is even-handed.
Whether it can do is still unclear, and further changes are likely to address criticism by judges that while it is independent, it is not fully compliant with the ECHR. Nevertheless, some of those writing it off have probably done so too early. Three months ago, Micheál Martin said the body would need “root and branch reform” to be acceptable.
But if the ICRIR is inadequate, what is the Irish Government's alternative? Pressing the UK to change, it seems. Britain can at least say it's doing something substantive to give families that want it detailed accounts of their loved ones' murders, based on previously-secret information.
The Irish Government is not a disinterested bystander which can stand on the sidelines critiquing what the British Government is doing. It had a role — whether through its informants, its signals intelligence, its use as a safe haven by republicans, its refusal to extradite, collusion by individuals or otherwise — in Troubles murders. Some of that story will be, as for Britain, messy and embarrassing. But, as with Britain, much of it will be the opposite: Details of strenuous efforts to thwart murderers.
In the absence of other mechanisms whereby most victims can have questions answered (despite a small number of inquests), there will be a magnetic pull towards the ICRIR. The fact one relative can trigger an investigation means there are likely to be more cases referred to the ICRIR than most people realise.
That's further aided by removing amnesty because now the first stage of any investigation is a police-style cold case review. If a prosecution is possible, it can be brought. In most cases, that won't be possible. At that point, it moves to the second stage which is about answering relatives' questions.
And that's where the Irish Government comes into it. The ICRIR has no territorial limitation. If, for instance, a relative of a victim of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings comes to it asking for an investigation, that will happen. In such a case, Irish files — from the Garda, Defence Forces and Government — will contain crucial information. So far, the Irish Government isn't prepared to hand that to the ICRIR, setting up the potential for southern victims to lobby their own government to cooperate with the only mechanism whereby they can get answers.
The ICRIR told me it can compel witnesses or documents within the UK but can only “ask” other states such as the Republic to provide information through “Mutual Legal Assistance”. Such requests would be formally handled by “prosecuting authorities”. The Department for Foreign Affairs (DFA) defended its stance, saying legislation which established the ICRIR “does not provide for cross-border cooperation”, something it said is in contrast to the Stormont House Agreement from 10 years ago which committed to an independent commission for 'information recovery' across both jurisdictions.
The DFA said the UK had “unilaterally moved away from that approach”. Suggesting that it won't help the ICRIR, the DFA said: “The Government has not engaged with the ICRIR”, but added that officials are now exploring “whether, and how, it might be possible to return to an agreed approach on legacy”.
Whatever the ICRIR's flaws, harking back to an abandoned agreement from 10 years ago, made by another government, is of questionable utility.
Some victims believe they should hold out for something better than the ICRIR. Others are happy with what's on offer or pragmatically think it's better to take it rather than hope something better might materialise before they're dead.
In September, the ICRIR said it had received 85 enquiries. As of last month, 14 of those have led to investigations. One is the IRA's Guildford pub bombings. Another is the killing of 19-year-old IRA man Seamus Bradley (left) by the British Army.
Despite Sinn Féin's opposition, his brother Danny told the Irish News after meeting the investigators, “I believe they will honestly investigate Seamus's case”.
The ICRIR's first reports are expected next year. Next month, the Omagh bomb inquiry, which is also pushing for Irish cooperation, will begin.
As Taoiseach, Micheál Martin will face both a conundrum and an opportunity. He'd rather be talking about growing the economy and building more houses than about a process to examine Ireland's failures during the Troubles.
He is respected by many unionists in a way Leo Varadkar wasn't, largely due to his Brexit stance, and Simon Harris is not, mainly because they don't know him. Unionists know him, and in many cases trust him to an extent which is rare.
As victims and witnesses die with each passing day, there is real urgency to this. If it's not solved next year, for many it will be too late.
Comment
It seems very odd to say the least for the Irish government to object to amnesty when they practiced it themselves after 1925. Today they are under no particular pressure to deal with their own handling of the Troubles. The indications are they are more prepared to trust Labour than the Conservatives with the Troubles legacy and are looking for convincing reasons to withdraw their Strasbourg case. The Finucane public inquiry and making the ICRIR fully HR compliant may provide sufficient grounds; in other cases like Sean Brown's letting the law take its course.
The SHA legislation couldn't commit the south, nor have they passed equivalent legislation. But they are of course involved because of the familiar litany of cross border involvement like the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
Brian Walker
Almost 20 years ago in 2005 the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrats Government decided not to prosecute ‘On the Runs’ in the South for Troubles related offences. That remains the case to this day.
Arguably the UK could take a Member State case against the Republic to Europe.
Pots and Kettles come to mind.
Padraig Yeates
What Sam McBride doesn’t grasp, despite his long article, is one case taken up by the ICRIR is no magnet for victims. Victims unfortunately are being misled again. Contrary to what Sam or anyone says stating that the ICRIR can compel anyone in the UK to hand over documents of disclosure of any murder means absolutely nothing and is totally wrong.
Hilary Benn in his speech several weeks ago in Westminster said the opposite. He made it clear that he decides what is given to ICRIR, not the PSNI or Sir Declan Morgan. I believe Hilary Benn used PII (Public Interest Immunity) in his speech, which means the documents that victims’ families seek (and that I have sought in relation to my son’s murder for 27 years) won’t be given.
The documents show that the state's involvement and the names of the state agents who committed multiple murders won’t be handed over due to " The national security of the UK", as Hilary Benn put it. MI5 controls the documents, not Hilary Benn, Sir Declan Morgan or Chief Constable Boucher.
Now the so called last chance saloon called ICRIR is being used as a gun to the heads of victims’ families to hide the British government’s greatest fear, THE TRUTH. The Dublin government have many, many questions to answer over murders committed in Northern Ireland. This is another reason PII will be used to protect politicians, police officers and the security agencies. ICRIR, however well intentioned Sir Declan Morgan is, won’t provide what victims’ families seek most , Justice with transparency and the Truth.
We are just asking that the British law on all murders applies to this part of the UK. No need for the Legacy Act or ICRIR. Just Justice in a British Court using British law as if in London, Cardiff or Glasgow.
Raymond McCord Victims campaigner Belfast
I agree generally with Sam.
However, there is an assumption about justice for the relatives. This needs to be examined critically.
About 3,750 families are involved. Those living in NI are up against the 300,000 veterans who were rotated in Operation Banner.
The Belfast agreement promised the families very little, other than compassion through recognition.
It gave republicans and loyalists a great deal, and Tony Blair then secretly helped the former with the OTRS ('On The Runs') administrative scheme, which ran from 2000 to 2014 (if it ceased at all).
It took all UK governments 25 years to come up with ICRIR, the only institution established.
I have long (with the Malone House Group) advocated the equation: with prosecutions increasingly unlikely (and fair prosecution impossible), a line should be drawn; the archives can then be opened subject to human rights safeguards.
Instead, we have a crisis induced by the NI judiciary, not normally a role for judges. There will be no disclosures any time soon, except the prosecution of aged veterans, which has not been going too well!
Hilary Benn made a big mistake after the general election. He was correct to support Sir Declan. But he is jeopardizing that by toying with the Stormont House Agreement, in order to appease Dublin and northern nationalists.
He is not going to legislate the SHA entirely or even substantively.
He is unlikely to buy off Dublin – pressured by the professors – with his repeal and replace statute.
Austen Morgan
i
