 |
 |
 |
 |
PRESS RELEASE ARCHIVE: | 2005 | 2004 | <<< 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1997 | 1995 |
|
A
TRUST BETRAYED
THE
CASE FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY
THE
STATE RESPONSE THERETO May 2003 “An unforgivable act” |
|
- An Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave T.D. on RTE at 10.00 p.m. on 17 May 1974
On Friday, 17 May 1974 at 5.30 p.m., a series of no-warning bombs exploded in Parnell Street, Talbot Street and South Leinster Street in Dublin city centre. An hour and a half later at 6.58 p.m., a fourth no-warning car bomb exploded in North Road, Monaghan Town. As a result of the bombings, 33 people lost their lives and hundreds more were injured. Among the dead the following were to be counted:
Relatives of the dead, together with surviving victims, have for many years questioned what happened on that Friday evening – no one charged, no one prosecuted, no explanations and no answers.
The relatives and the injured have been asked to believe that this outrage was:
In essence, an event that calls for no searching questions and no special inquiry.
Over the years, the relatives and the injured have questioned this convention - to them and to many others this was an event out of the ordinary. What happened in Dublin and Monaghan on 17 May 1974 was exceptional.
Ten
Deadly Hours
09.00
Taxi Hijacked - Woburn Street, Belfast.
Within a period of 10 hours on 17 May 1974, four cross border no-warning bombing operations were initiated and followed through to completion. Barely eight hours passed between the theft of the cars in Belfast and their synchronised detonation in Dublin.
Cars stolen and hijacked; owners held and later released; cars first driven from Belfast to an Armagh farmyard and then across the Border and on to Dublin; cars laden with explosives, bombs primed and driven to city centre; drivers depart; bombs explode with maximum efficiency; car stolen in Portadown and driven to Armagh farmyard; car laden with explosives and driven across the Border to Monaghan Town; bomb primed, drivers depart, bomb explodes.
This was an operation that required skill, planning and resources. It involved the co-ordination on one day of a range of activities and operatives in diverse locations.
This was a terrorist operation that involved two jurisdictions and called for a comprehensive and combined investigation by the law enforcement agencies north and south of the Irish Border.
THE
UNFORGIVABLE BECOMES THE FORGETTABLE.
Saturday, 18 May 1974 involved visits to morgues and identification of the remains of loved ones. Funerals followed on the Tuesday and Wednesday. The following week, the Coroner’s Court sat in Dublin City. Kind words were spoken, words of outrage, words of thanks to doctors, nurses, ambulance crews and others. The Dublin inquests were adjourned on the application of Mr. Peter Sutherland, Barrister at Law, on behalf of the Gardaí pending on-going Garda inquiries. Those inquests have never been resumed. Not even 14 days had passed.
The inquests in Monaghan were convened and concluded. The explosion fractured tenuous bonds among the bereaved. Families mourned alone. The Border town felt abandoned. In Dublin, relatives of the dead and the living injured had no communal bond. They were people from different places, backgrounds and walks of life caught in the fall out of a city explosion. The families came from different counties and even countries. They had no gathering point, no point of common passage. They had no leaders, no common politics or common identity. Their loved ones had no common purpose in being where they were when the bombs exploded.
In their own homes, they were left to cope, to ponder, to question and to wait for answers from people who didn’t hear or even recognise the question.
For some of the relatives, there was the matter of claiming compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. In the main, the claims had been dealt with by the close of 1974. Some relatives protested at the level of compensation for victims. Others pursued their public representatives and sought answers. It was sixteen years before an annual commemorative Mass came to be organised and seventeen before a memorial was built. In all those years there were no official communications, no contact from the Gardaí, no reports.
It was not until 1991 that matters took a significant turn when a team of journalists from Yorkshire TV in England began to investigate the bombings for the “First Tuesday” ITV documentary series. This team was to spend a protracted period over 2 years investigating the bombings. They travelled to Northern Ireland and the Republic and conducted numerous interviews. They were given unprecedented access to the content of Garda files by the then Garda Commissioner.
The programme, which was broadcast, “Hidden Hand – The Forgotten Massacre” is to this date the most comprehensive and reliable commentary on what occurred. In so far as the programme makers expressed opinions, those opinions were not based on mere conjecture or speculation.
In the course of the making of the programme, the programme producers brought the relatives and injured together. For the first time, they found and were given explanations. For the first time, they found their own voice.
“Hidden
Hand – The Forgotten Massacre”
On 6 July 1993 “Hidden Hand – The Forgotten Massacre” was broadcast as part of the First Tuesday series on Channel 4. The following disclosures were made:
On Suspects:
On Connections:
On the Garda Inquiry:
On the RUC:
On State Complicity:
On State Knowledge:
On Denials:
QUESTIONS
UNANSWERED
From the making of the programme sprang a group of relatives and victims who were no longer willing to remain silent and who wanted answers. All they now knew of the events of 17 May 1974 defied acceptance of the status quo, namely that the bombings were “a conventional terrorist atrocity”.
The relatives came to question:
In any other country, the content and scope of the First Tuesday documentary would of itself have led to a public inquiry.
On 7 July 1993, the day following the YTV broadcast, Deputies Gay Mitchell T.D. and John Bruton, T.D. moved a private members motion in Dáil Éireann to have the House appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the murderous bombings in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974. The Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds T.D., indicated in reply to Austin Currie, T.D. that he did not propose to make any statement at this stage and added that:
“The Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána are examining all the allegations made.”
Later that night in Dáil Éireann, Deputies Eamon Gilmore T.D. and Tony Gregory T.D. pressed the Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn T.D. on the need for a public inquiry. The Minister in her reply indicated that Gardaí were considering the content of the YTV programme and that the Garda Commissioner was heading up the investigation following the previous night’s programme and would report to her that week. No commitment was given to hold an inquiry. Indeed, the Minister indicated:
“the proper and most appropriate form of inquiry in this instance is the police investigation which is already underway.”
On 19 April 1994,
Minister Geoghegan-Quinn gave a commitment in Dáil
“I have undertaken to inform the relatives…. of my evaluation of the Garda assessment of the contents of the YTV programme before issuing a public statement on the matter…everything possible is being done to fulfil that undertaking as a matter of urgency.”
On 25 October 1994, the Minister was again questioned by Deputies Molloy, Mitchell, Gilmore, Higgins, Currie and Callely. The Minister’s response included the following:-
“Unfortunately, the investigation is, at this remove, of its nature, a complex affair. That and my concern to ensure that all avenues of investigation have been followed up had meant that the matter could not be brought to a speedier conclusion. My examination of the Garda reports to which I have already referred is continuing. That examination will form the basis for the public statement, which I have previously undertaken to give… My intention is that the public statement will be as comprehensive as possible…It will need the most careful preparation and I, therefore, intend to consult with both the Garda authorities and the DPP before finalising its terms…”
On 8 February 1995, the new Minister for Justice, Nora Owen T.D., was questioned in the Dáil by Deputies Molloy, Sargent, Gregory, D. Ahern and Killeen as to whether the investigation into the Yorkshire Television documentary had been completed and whether she would establish a judicial public inquiry. In reply to the Dáil questions, she confirmed her intention to bring the matter to a conclusion and to make a statement as quickly as possible. She assured the House that she would honour the commitments made by the former Minister.
On 26 April 1995, the Minister in reply to a question from Deputy Michael McDowell T.D. indicated that she would be in a position to fulfil the commitment shortly.
On 17 May 1995, the 21st anniversary of the bombings, a group of relatives and victims were invited to meet the Minister for Justice, Nora Owen T.D. That same day, the Government Information Office on behalf of the Minister issued a statement purporting to respond to the issues raised in the ‘First Tuesday’ documentary nearly two years earlier.
This statement was fatally flawed and misleading. The statement set out how the Gardaí had, following the broadcast, interviewed the programme makers and some of the participants to see if there was any fresh evidence.
However, the Hidden Hand programme was not about whether evidence could now be gathered to pursue a conviction. The real issue raised by the programme was how the opportunity to pursue convictions had been compromised in 1974. In essence, the investigation conducted by the Department of Justice was limited to an assessment of any alleged new evidence relevant to procuring a conviction. The Department investigation completely ignored the issues of public concern and touching public accountability that were raised in the documentary.
The statement issued in the Minister’s name and on behalf of the Department of Justice sought implicitly and explicitly to disparage the programme makers. It sought to deceive the relatives into believing that the issues raised had been examined and addressed by the Department of Justice, the Gardaí and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A close examination of the statement issued reveals that the issues of public concern and public disquiet raised by the programme were never seriously or openly addressed. The issues of substance were ignored and a cosmetic exercise engaged in. It constituted, not a rebuttal of concerns, but a denial.
This statement made it impossible for the relatives to have any future confidence in anything other than a sworn public inquiry. It was clear that the Department of Justice did not want these issues addressed in any manner.
On the following day, 18 May 1995, RTE broadcast a Prime Time documentary “Friendly Forces?” This documentary reinforced, confirmed and added to the concerns first raised by the Yorkshire Television programme in July 1993.
The matter was to be pursued further in Dáil Éireann. On the 8 June 1995, Deputies Gregory and Harney put questions to the Minister. On 13 October 1995 Deputy Callely again pursued the matter. On the 15 May 1996, Deputies Harney and McDowell asked Minister Owen whether she would make a statement on the Prime Time programme and confirm whether the Department considered the matter closed. The Minister simply replied that:
“I informed the relatives by way of letter dated 29 February 1996 that the Garda authorities were satisfied from their assessment of the Prime Time broadcast of May 1995 that no new evidence or witness had been identified which would provide a basis for further Garda investigations.”
On the 25 February 1997, Deputy Flaherty asked the Minister in the Dáil whether relevant Garda files would be made available to the relatives. The matter was also raised by Deputy Lenihan on the 8 April 1997. On both occasions, Minister Owen replied:
“The Garda authorities also informed me that it is not proposed to make the Garda investigation file available as it would be contrary to long standing practice to make files of this kind available to any parties.”
This assertion conflicts with the assistance previously afforded to British journalists.
NO ONE WANTS TO KNOW
In February 1996, the committee of Justice for the Forgotten formally instructed solicitors to conduct a review of the programme and to pursue on behalf of the relatives and victims all possible avenues of legal redress.
On 23 February 1996, Greg O’Neill, the solicitor for the relatives and injured wrote to the Garda Commissioner in the following terms:
“In these circumstances, we formally request that An Garda Síochána might make available to us, as our clients’ legal advisers and on a confidential and privileged basis, access to such information and material within the possession, power or procurement of An Garda Síochána pertinent to such intended Civil Proceedings.
Please indicate whether such facility can be afforded at an early date in this wholly exceptional case.”
On 12 March 1996, the Assistant Commissioner responded in the following terms:
“Your request has been carefully considered by the Garda Authorities in this case. The position, however, remains that it is of paramount importance for the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána that information gathered in the course of a criminal or other investigation must remain confidential. The Garda Authorities regret that they are unable to accede to your request in this case.”
On 15 April 1996, the Solicitors again wrote to the Commissioner with a series of 10 questions seeking clarification as follows:
“We would be most appreciative if you could clarify the following:-
Any further information as to the nature, scope and extent of the Garda investigation which you might feel relevant would be most appreciated by out client.”
Again, on 30 April 1996, the Assistant Commissioner replied in the following terms:
“Your request has been carefully considered by the Garda Authorities in this case. The position, however, remains that it is of paramount importance for the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána that information gathered in the course of a criminal or other investigation must remain confidential. The Garda Authorities regret that they are unable to accede to your request in this case.”
On 15 May 1996, the Solicitor again wrote to the Garda Commissioner repeating the request of 15 April 1996 confirming:
“We have sought particulars as to what steps have been taken in the investigation and we have not sought any substantive information touching the identity of any persons involved either in the investigation or those suspected of having been involved in the commission of the crime.”
The letter was not replied to.
On the 16 and 17 September 1996, the Solicitor again wrote that the Garda Commissioner indicating that complaints against the United Kingdom had been lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights by a number of named clients. The complaints alleged that the RUC had breached Article 2 of the Convention in failing to conduct a proper investigation into matters connected with the outrage. The letter went on to request:
“The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation that you are willing to place the files and records of the Garda Síochána investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings at the disposal of the Commission of Human Rights for the purpose of a commission inquiry.”
On 23 September 1996, the Commissioner’s Office replied:
“Material on Garda Investigation files is confidential. In the circumstances, the Commissioner cannot agree to the release of the material which you sought.”
The response of the Garda Commissioner to the various requests made on behalf of the relatives and victims was in sharp contrast to the assistance previously afforded to Yorkshire Television as stated in their documentary in the following terms:
“The Irish Police – the Garda Síochána – carried out the official investigation into the bombings, the biggest murder hunt in their history. Most unusually in a terrorist case, the Gardaí revealed the contents of many classified files, eye-witness statements, forensic reports and released official photographs.”
Mr. Patrick Doyle, now deceased, took a case to the High Court and to the Supreme Court seeking discovery of the Garda files in aid of his complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights. The Garda Commissioner opposed the application. The Courts held that they had no jurisdiction to compel the Garda Commissioner to make the discovery sought on such an application.
The admissibility of the application before the European Commission on Human Rights was considered by the European Court of Human Rights. On 6 July 1999, the European Court of Human Rights held that:
“The applications had not been lodged within the six-month period prescribed by Article 35.1 of the Convention and must therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 35.4”.
The rationale adopted by the Court was as follows:
“The Court considers that shortly after this event (the bombings), it must have been clear to the Applicant that the United Kingdom authorities were not prepared to conduct a formal murder inquiry. In any event, the applicant must have become aware of the alleged failure of the United Kingdom authorities to co-operate in the Irish authorities’ inquiry at the latest on 6 July 1993 when the relevant programme was broadcast on ITV. However, the applicant lodged his complaint before the Convention organs only on 27 May 1996, which is more that six months later.”
The Application to the Court was declared inadmissible.
Following further investigations by the Solicitor, it transpired that the Inquests into the Dublin deaths, which had been adjourned on the application of the Garda Síochána on 27 May 1974, had never been resumed.
On 16 April 1999, Greg O’Neill wrote to the Dublin City Coroner seeking to have the matter mentioned before him in the following terms:
“We are instructed to request that you list the inquest in this case for mention as soon as possible on a convenient day.”
On 26 April 1999, the Coroner replied as follows:
“My understanding is that the files in relation to these inquiries were before the previous coroner (now deceased) for a period of 16 years. On my assuming office in 1991, the files were deactivated and are in the archives. I am unaware what decisions were made in the matter or under what section of the 1962 Act these inquests were adjourned. In addition, when a coroner ceases to hold office, his files devolve to the County Registrar, by operation of law.
Having considered the matter, it is clear to me that I have no jurisdiction to relist these cases.”
On 5 October 1999, the Solicitor again wrote to the Coroner enclosing a 1974 press cutting reporting that the inquests had been adjourned on the application of the Garda Síochána and confirming that the County Registrar’s Office had indicated that they did hot hold the previous Coroner’s files. On the basis that the adjournment of the inquests under Section 25 (1) of the Act was verifiable, the Coroner was requested to resume the inquests.
On 21 October 1999, the Solicitor sent a reminder to the Coroner.
On 26 October, the Solicitor again wrote to the Coroner seeking clarification of a telephone conversation with the Coroner’s office manager as follows:
“When I enquired as to whether you would be replying to my letter of the 5th inst., I was informed by him (the Office Manager) that the position you had taken was that you would not be proceeding with the Inquests with respect to the above named deceased nor indeed any of the inquests of those killed in the bombings in Dublin on 17 May 1974 unless directed to do so by the Department of Justice.”
The Dublin City Coroner replied to this letter on 1 November 1999 in the following terms:
“I would appreciate some clarification as to why no representations were made to the previous coroner when those files were before him for seventeen years. In so far as I am concerned, the files were dormant when I took office. As I have already indicated, I do not know what decisions were made nor do I have any information in relation to what happened at that time.
My concern as to jurisdiction to reopen these cases remains. However, in view of your recent representations, I propose to take legal advice and I shall revert to you in early course.”
At each and every turn, the Relatives have met with resistance, obstruction and denial. Even the most innocent request to a state body is met with resistance. On 16 September 1999, the Committee Secretary wrote to RTE seeking details of material relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in their Audio Archive and the cost of obtaining copies of same. That letter met with the following reply from the RTE Solicitor’s Office:
“While not intending any disrespect or wishing to cause any inconvenience to your Committee, we trust you will understand when we say that RTE believes that the most fair, reasonable and effective way of making such material available would be through whatever Inquiry is established by the Government is this matter.”
FURTHER DISCLOSURES
The validity of the concerns held by the relatives in relation to the adequacy of the investigation and the complicity of state forces in the bombings had been confirmed by further disclosures.
Dr. James Donovan, the Head of the State Forensic Laboratory, in an interview with Mr. Don Mullan, confirmed that only bomb debris from Parnell Street had been sent to the State Laboratory. For reasons not known or understood by Dr. Donovan, the bomb debris from the bombsites was sent for forensic testing to the Northern Ireland Forensic Laboratory. The State Forensic Laboratory was never furnished with the results of the other tests.
From Dr. Donovan’s interview it appears:
Mr. Mullan wrote to the Garda Commissioner asking if they could establish a chain of custody for bomb debris and whether the debris was in their possession. The Commissioner’s Office replied that such information remained confidential and could not be released.
In 1999, a copy of a statement made by a Mr. John Weir, a former RUC Constable, was received. Mr. Weir served in a Special Patrol Group based in Armagh in the mid 1970s. The RUC Special Patrol Groups comprised 5 units of 30 men billeted army style in a number of locations in Northern Ireland. Mr. Weir was convicted of murder in 1980 and was released from prison in 1992.
Mr. Weir’s statement confirms:
THE REPORT OF THE VICTIMS’ COMMISSION
Pursuant to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government appointed Mr. John Wilson as Victims’ Commission. In December of 1998, a detailed submission was sent to the Victims’ Commission on behalf of Justice for the Forgotten. The submission canvassed support for a Truth Commission but in the absence of sufficient support for same sought the establishment of a Public Inquiry.
The Submission concluded as follows:
In addition, a paper commissioned from Professor Dermot Walsh of the Centre for Criminal Justice of the University of Limerick was submitted to the Victims’ Commission. Professor Walsh has previously submitted material, which was considered by the Government in arriving at its conclusion that a new Public Inquiry was required into the events of Bloody Sunday.
Professor Walsh’s paper was entitled: “The Capacity of Legal, Administrative and Political Mechanisms to Call the Garda Síochána to Account for its Investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings” and concluded:
In August 1999, the Victims’ Commissioner published his report. In his report, he recommended a private inquiry headed by a former Supreme Court Judge. He further recommended that the report of such an inquiry be published. The Commission’s recommendation for a Private Inquiry was greeted with considerable surprise, dismay and concern by Justice for the Forgotten. The issue of a private inquiry had not been canvassed by or discussed with the relatives. A private inquiry did not appear capable of addressing the relatives’ concerns and did not reflect the gravity, nature and extent of the matters sought to be enquired into.
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF A PUBLIC INQUIRY
In a case such as this, there is considerable scope as to how terms of reference might be drafted. In essence, the appropriate terms chosen should embrace a consideration of a range of relevant matters.
We submit that the following are a range of matters, which are relevant to a Public Tribunal of Inquiry.
(a) A legal analysis and review of:
(b) A review of relevant matters which preceded the bombings, including:
(c) A review of the Criminal Investigation, including:
(d) A Review of Matters arising from the Garda Investigation, including:
(e) A review of the treatment of issues relevant to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in recent years, including:
JOINT
HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE
In November 1999, Justice for the Forgotten was accorded the opportunity of presenting the case for a public tribunal of inquiry to the powerful Joint Houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament) Committee on Justice Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights.
Evidence was presented from Glyn Middleton, Researcher and Producer of the Hidden Hand documentary, the author Don Mullan, and from the families and the wounded. Submissions were made by the lawyers representing the families.
THE
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
In response the Government entered into negotiations with Justice for the Forgotten and, as a result, in December, 1999, established the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, under the chairmanship of the then recently retired Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton. The Dundalk bombing of December 1975 was added to the Terms of Reference. Mr. Justice Hamilton retired in October 2000 on grounds of ill- health. He died in November 2000. The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Barron, also a former Justice of the Supreme Court, was appointed to chair the Independent Commission.
The Terms of Reference of the Independent Commission of Inquiry are as follows:
“To undertake a thorough examination, involving fact-finding and assessment, of all aspects of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and their sequel, including:
The Independent Commission of Inquiry is not a public Tribunal of Inquiry. It is a process of fact-finding and assessment. By agreement with the families, the Independent Commission will report on its work to the Irish Government. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice will call for the report, which will be published under parliamentary privilege. The report will form the basis of public hearings before the Committee, which has plenary powers of sub-poena over all persons and materials.
The Independent Commission has been assisted in its work by the legal team of Justice for the Forgotten, which, on a basis independent of the Commission of Inquiry has been engaged in investigative work, assembling the material and evidence under each heading of the Terms of Reference. The Commission is due to complete its report in Autumn 2003.
REPORT
OF THE STEVENS ENQUIRY
The summary report published on the 17th April 2003 by Sir John Stevens is of significant importance in that parallels can be drawn with issues arising in the investigation of the Dublin & Monaghan Bombings.
The Stevens Report found that collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries existed in the late 1980s. The Stevens Report does not attempt to or purport to identify when collusion started. The fact that collusion has been found to have existed in the late 1980s lends credibility to the allegations that the Dublin & Monaghan Bombings was the product of similar collusion in the 1970s.
Many of the ingredients of collusion that Stevens identified also surface in the allegations of collusion in the Dublin & Monaghan Bombings. The Stevens menu of collusion includes the following elements;
While the incidents considered by the Stevens Enquiry concern the late 1980s the seeds go back further - Brian Nelson was recruited as an agent in 1985 and the FRU was actually set up as early as 1979.
The findings of the Stevens Enquiry point to a policy and practice of collusion that was not of recent origin. The fact that Stevens characterises the obstruction he encountered as cultural is significant. Cultural attitudes in organisations tend to be formed over many years.
In comparing the 1970s with the 1980s all the ingredients essential to collusion were in place from early in the 1970s. These ingredients include; army special units, the existence and manipulation of agents, the disparity in security approach to both communities, the existence of the same structures and organisations i.e. RUC Special Branch, British Army Intelligence, Intelligence Agencies and the respective security and intelligence co-ordinating committees. In addition throughout the 1970s a series of events occurred which bear the hallmarks of collusion.
THE RESPONSE OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Justice for the Forgotten believes that co-operation from the British Government is an essential ingredient in the process of discovering the truth behind the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
The failure of the British Government to adequately respond to and cooperate with the Independent Commission of Inquiry is extremely worrying as to the message that sends out of what may be hidden in security and intelligence files in Whitehall.
The intervention of senior Whitehall Crown servants in directing individual past and current employees of the United Kingdom Government and armed forces not to cooperate with Justice for the Forgotten, quoting the alleged but in reality, non-existing cooperation with the Barron Inquiry speaks volumes to the bereaved families and survivors.
Just as important is the input from individuals living in the United Kingdom who may have information concerning events in Northern Ireland in 1974 relevant to the work of the Commission of Inquiry.
Justice for the Forgotten is, indeed, convinced that there are people in the UK who have information central to the issues involved.
RESUMPTION OF INQUESTS
The inquests were opened on 27 May 1974 and identification and medical evidence was given. The inquests were then adjourned sine die on application made by Mr. Peter Sutherland, BL, on the instructions of An Garda Síochána. The request was made on the basis that Garda investigations had not been completed and the adjournment would allow for these investigations to be completed so that the perpetrators of the bombings could be apprehended. The perpetrators were never apprehended and the inquests were not resumed.
Mr. Greg O'Neill, Solicitor for Justice for the Forgotten, began corresponding with the Dublin City Coroner, Dr. Brian Farrell,in October 1998 requesting that the inquests be reopened. On 12 September 2000, the Coroner agreed to this request and suggested that the appropriate time to do so would be after the report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry was published.
The inquests were formally reopened on 20 June 2003 and will be listed again on 18 September 2003 when a date for the full hearings may be set.
CONCLUSION
It is the view of the relatives and victims that the only appropriate forum through which the issues of public disquiet can be effectively addressed in a Public Tribunal of Inquiry with statutory powers.
A private inquiry conflicts with the approach taken by the Irish Government in relation to Bloody Sunday and the murder of Pat Finucane.
In the case of Bloody Sunday, new material was essential if a case was to be made in favour of a new independent inquiry where an inquiry had already taken place many years earlier.
In the case of Pat Finucane, the Irish Government relied on a report prepared by British Irish Rights Watch in coming to its conclusion that the case for a public inquiry was compelling. The British Irish Rights Watch report was based on two sources of information, one public and one confidential. The report was in part the result of investigative journalism and in part the product of journalistic access to confidential contacts and sources.
In many instances, events of themselves have proved sufficient cause for a public inquiry. Indeed, in the case of Bloody Sunday, the very involvement of State Forces in the killing was sufficient to warrant the original public inquiry. In our own jurisdiction, the Stardust Inquiry was established within days of that tragic fire. In other instances, the event of itself does not immediately call for a public inquiry. It requires some additional credible revelation to bring the matter within the scope of concern warranting a public inquiry.
In the case of Dublin and Monaghan, the criteria for a public inquiry are met by the revelations contained in the “Hidden Hand” documentary and reinforced by further revelations referred to in this submission. It is clear that as far back as 1993 and 1994, the Irish Department of Justice failed to submit the “Hidden Hand” documentary to a bona fide assessment, similar to that later applied by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the British Irish Rights Watch Report.
Quite apart from the loss of loved ones, there has been an enormous loss of faith in the institutions of the Republic by law abiding and upright citizens, who, through official actions, omissions and denials have been subjected to additional hurt. In a profound sense, their experience has been that of a trust betrayed. Our collective responsibility must be to rebuild that trust through an open and transparent process, namely a process of Public Inquiry.
Official attitudes in the Republic to the issue of the Bombings show signs of changing. The Dublin City Coroner has agreed to reconvene and hold full inquests into the Dublin bombings deaths. Like the Independent Commission of Inquiry, this is a significant step forward in the progress towards a transparent inquiry into the greatest atrocity in the history of the Irish “Troubles”.
The public resolution of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings enormity may entail a cross- jurisdictional process. This will require the active participation of the Governments on both islands and the engagement of all those caught up in the tragic circumstances of the bombings. It presents for many in Ireland and overseas, a crucial test for the commitment of both Governments to the Northern Ireland Peace Process, as well as the most significant opportunity to confront and deal with the past and transform the future relationships of the peoples in both countries. |
Copyright © Justice For The Forgotten. All rights reserved.