Now it’s the PSNI in the dock. Chaos over the past deepens as political deadlock over Haas agenda continues

13 views

At last the clash has come between accountability and transparency and “national security” over dealing with the past. After the unhappy period of Al Hutchinson we have a Police Ombudsman in the assertive tradition of Nuala O’Loan. Michael Maguire who was also Hutchinson’s successor as Police Oversight Commissioner probably knows where quite few bodies are buried (figuratively of course) and is an altogether steelier figure.

NI’s chief constable is being taken to court over claims he obstructed Police Ombudsman investigations into allegations against the police in 60 murders…Mr Maguire said he had no option because he had received more than 100 refusals for information.

The Detail believes that the list includes the 1994 Loughinisland massacre, where loyalist gunmen killed six people as they watched the World Cup in a Co Down bar

Are  the political parties bothered by Michael Maguire’s action? Not judging from their response to the consultation over the operation of OPNI after the row about  its independence. Only 2 responses came from politicians.

Last month the PSNI put Gerry Adams in the frame.  Now they themselves are facing legal challenge from  Michael Maguire.  Yesterday it was reported that the party leaders had failed to make progress on the Haass agenda. Does anybody see the connection between the three stories?

, , , , ,

  • Morpheus

    Brian

    Is it the Chief Constable of the PSNI that is being sued (ie. the office) or Matt Baggot, the person who allegedly obstructed the Ombudsman? I only ask because MB will not be in post for much longer so does this all go away when he retires and the whole process starts again with the new CC?

  • RegisterForThisSite

    “…. Legal advisers from the PSNI’s Legacy Support Unit have also attended the sessions.

    The retired officers’ association is currently refusing to cooperate with Police Ombudsman investigations into some historical incidents.

    A spokesman for the PSNI refused to reveal if matters relating to the Police Ombudsman have been discussed at the “legacy information” events. He also refused to explain why police will not answer the question….”

    http://www.irishnews.com/news/police-documents-confirm-briefing-seminars-took-place-1358478

    Thought this would have had higher billing esp as the meetings they refuse to discuss had presentations from ACC Drew Harris of OTR fame and the copper who arrested Gerry Adams and DCC Gillespie who almost had a tilt at the top job.

    I see the SDLP are getting involved, though the police should just be allowed to get on with their job, after all Enda assured us they weren’t the RUC, Dark forces anyone

  • Pete Baker

    “Does anybody see the connection between the three stories?”

    Well, someone with an agenda might – well-intentioned no doubt, but still an agenda.

    Personally, I’d caution against jumping to any conclusions. Whatever The Detail believes

    Fact is that the Ombudsman is seeking a judicial review of the PSNI’s approach to its requests for information that may involve covert human intelligence sources. The PSNI maintain that they have a duty of care not to reveal certain information under human rights legislation.

    It will be up to the courts to make a ruling.

    Here’s a nugget from 2009 on relative spending on sources within the UK police.

    And here’s the Police Ombudsman’s statement on the judicial review request. That statement doesn’t mention any specific cases, even if somebody is clearly briefing otherwise.

    And from the UTV report

    In a statement, a PSNI spokesman said: “The PSNI has a legal responsibility for the care and management of all information that it holds – this is a responsibility which must be taken extremely seriously. At the same time, the PSNI also recognises the statutory responsibility to provide information to the Police Ombudsman, enabling exercise of his functions and legal responsibilities.

    Police are currently seeking to agree a solution with PONI around these complicated, and sometimes unfortunately competing, legal issues.” [added emphasis]

    The spokesman added: “Until we can get a resolution, PSNI believes that it has responded appropriately to each request, giving careful consideration on a case by case basis, to ensure that the respective legal requirements are met.

    “PSNI will continue to work with PONI to seek to get an agreement over our respective obligations and ensure we both have shared understanding of the legal framework.”

    The BBC report has an added paragraph to the PSNI statement about “the respective legal requirements”

    [PSNI] “We will continue to fulfil our legal obligations with the primary consideration being that of protecting life in accordance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

  • Roy Walsh

    Who was it once said, ‘they haven’t gone way you know’?

  • RegisterForThisSite

    PSNI must be spending a fortune on legal cases at the moment,

    they’re also appealing against not been bothered to arrest any fleggers,

    Also the file on Gerry Adams should be ready by now

    All this and the marching season to deal with too

    And a new head copper about to start

  • Brian Walker

    Pete, Thanks for adding context. The connexion I’m referring to is between random legal process yesterday against Adams and today against the PSNI which do little to achieve either truth or justice and the failure of the parties to grip the Haas agenda and come up with a comprehensive approach. As you know I keep saying that nothing will happen unless the two governments lead a new search for a solution. The judicial review I would guess could go all the way to the Supreme Court and last for years. It’s not all that premature to start discussing it.

  • Kevsterino

    So far, I think you are right, Brian, in that the cases against Adams and the PSNI have done little in the way of truth and justice. While the Adams case is technically still an open matter, the PSNI case is at just the beginning. If PONI cannot get the demanded materials, I don’t really know if it has any real reason to exist. I mean, why not just have the PSNI investigate the PSNI if they are in control of what material PONI can have access to?

    I think the Ombudsman has a winning case. I don’t think the PSNI can make anything stick to Adams.

    There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the corridors of the PSNI. And right soon. And, of course, the silly walks in Belfast et al.

    Sounds like something might burst out of all this, like maybe go see Dr. H about a way of putting all this past stuff in a safe place, where it can’t hurt the future.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Morpheus,

    It’s the office of Chief Constable that the case is being taken against, not Baggott personally, so the case will continue after Baggott has stepped down (which apparently might happen within weeks).

    I wouldn’t get too optimistic that the courts will overturn the CC here. This is a judicial review, which (amateur lawyer hat on) does not mean the courts can actually order the CC to release the information; it just means that the court could find that the CC acted unlawfully and needs to revisit the decision. We could see a series of court hearings spread out over a period of years before we get to the bottom of all this.

    This is quite a significant matter since it will decide the precedent in terms of when the Police Ombudsman’s investigative role is limited by whatever requirements the police have to keep evidence confidential. If it goes against the Ombudsman, nationalists are going to be very unhappy as the Ombudsman will be effectively neutered in his statutory obligation to investigate past police wrongdoing.

  • http://nalil.blogspot.com Nevin

    “As you know I keep saying that nothing will happen unless the two governments lead a new search for a solution.”

    The present political arrangements suit both London and Dublin so it’s doubtful if they will publicly rejoin the fray; their participation will mostly be well away from public view and scrutiny. Meanwhile, the chattering classes will continue to bang their heads against a brick wall.

  • Morpheus

    Thanks for the clarification CS but is the new CC in a position to say ‘nowt to do with me guvnor’ and the whole process starts again?

    In regards to overturning the CC then The Detail reports:
    “Section 66 of The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 states that the Chief Constable “shall supply the Ombudsman with such information and documents as the Ombudsman may require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of his functions”.

    and Dr Maguire states
    “The police have taken the view that they will decide whether or not to provide us with information and in many cases have now decided not to. We cannot have a situation where any public body, and particularly the police, can decide whether or not it will cooperate with a criminal or misconduct investigation, particularly where legislation requires them to do so.”

    I doubt very much that The Police Ombudsman will do anything to put the lives of anyone at risk when they have the information so if handing the information over is part of legislation then maybe it will be overturned. Are the PSNI saying that the PO cannot be trusted?

  • RegisterForThisSite

    “Thanks for the clarification CS but is the new CC in a position to say ‘nowt to do with me guvnor’ and the whole process starts again?”

    Nope. Unlikely the new CC could even get the case delayed for a day by using that excuse.
    What has been annoying me for a while is David Fords behaviour as MoJ. He was quick to go to the media for a moan over the OTR letters, he was quick to jump on the Adams arrest, but once again he goes to ground when something connected to his job comes up.

    My opinion, Ford has to go, he’s using the job to garner votes and little else.

    Perhaps Haas can be amended to get a neutral person to hold the job, or else the job gets filled via D’Holt same as the other ministries and a national or republican gets a turn to play politics in Justice

  • Roy Walsh

    Register, the reason Ford is in this post is simply because the Unionist parties were unwilling to permit a nationalist politician get their hands on the reins of the RUC/PSNI and this points to why this was so.
    Under d’hondt I recall the role should have gone to the SDLP, who did nothing positive to assert their constitutional right to the position so therefore are undeserving of it.
    The issue really is, the government, then direct rule ministers, want nothing to do with been tarred as overseeing state sponsored murders, regardless in some instances of the role of some of those murdered.
    If this is allowed to open up, and credit must go not only to Dr. Maguire but also to John Leckey, senior Coroner, the potential findings would leave her majesty’s treasury wide open to claims for damages from families and, once again, spotlight the great British justice system which has permitted the state forces to hide evidence, delay inquests into shootings they were involved in and frustrate justice in the courts they are supposed to be bound by.
    As I said above, ‘they haven’t gone away you know’ but a perhaps better description would be, ‘plus ca change’.

  • Comrade Stalin

    “Register for this site”,

    The Justice Minister has no role intervening in any way either into the operational decisions of the Chief Constable in terms of what information to release to the Police Ombudsman, or into the investigation of the Police Ombudsman itself. The same would be true if the Minister was a nationalist. I note that no political parties have commented on the matter of the court hearing – again, as is proper, as any inappropriate comments run the risk of prejudicing the hearing.

    Not sure where you are going with your examples. The only comment I’m aware of from Ford concerning the Adams arrest is that it was a matter for the police and they should be allowed to proceed with their investigations. On the comfort letters, I don’t see any issue with what he had to say on those matters – the NIO and the Secretary of State pulled the wool over the eyes of the devolved administration in an entirely inappropriate way.

    It sounds a lot like you’re spitballing on a matter you don’t really understand.

    Perhaps Haas can be amended to get a neutral person to hold the job

    A neutral person does hold the job and that is the way it is likely to stay for some time.

  • Roy Walsh

    Comrade, let’s not commence spitting at one another again over the declared position of the Alliance party in respect of the union with Britain but, how can the leader of a self declared Unionist party be described as ‘neutral’
    This will be the same party which, in the latter part of the last century, would not support Sinn Vein for mayor of Ireland’s second largest city.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Roy, because Alliance isn’t a self-declared Unionist party.

    The first Sinn Féin Mayor of Belfast was elected by Alliance votes.

  • Roy Walsh

    Comrade, as before, A. it’s contained in the governing document, which determines the political outlook and direction of this party, as do the constitutions of all political parties, that’s the way it rolls. Therefore the Alliance party are, by their own constitutional definition, a Unionist party, self proclaimed by this same document, remember back, I previously asked, why should an supposedly ‘cross community’ political party have any stance on the status of the six counties?
    B. Maskey was elected Mayor of Belfast in 2003, which is in the present century.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Roy,

    You are lying. There is no document relating to Alliance that makes any such claim.

    If you think there is, go ahead and post your evidence. Otherwise stop lying.

  • Roy Walsh

    As to the matter in hand, registerForThisSite makes the point the minister for justice has done little with respect to his duties vis resolving this matter, Comrade points in reply that the minister is not responsible for questioning the police chief constable on such matters however, the recently published letter from the frustrated senior Coroner to the minister for justice speaks of the duties seemingly unfilled by Ford regarding other serious matters involving the state’s forces and his seeming unwillingness to press for more open information from the British state which oversaw these state force’s actions.
    Ford is even seemingly, withholding necessary funding to enable the senior Coroner to fulfill the statutory obligation placed on him by the same state and now overseen by the ECHR.
    As to your assertion, Comrade, that I am a liar, we’ve been through this before, I have seen the Alliance party constitution, it seems not to be available on-line or I’d link to it, but, have a look at their 1997 document prior to entering all-party talks where they clearly state their party position vis the union with Britain, you might be disingenuous, mis-informed or unwilling to access the document but if so, don’t make it up as you go along, that’s for Hans Christian Anderson, oh, and don’t call me a liar, I took an oath to never do that, did you?

  • Comrade Stalin

    I’ve been a party member since 1994 and have never seen a document containing the words you assert. I have a copy of the constitution here in front of me and it doesn’t contain those words either. And now you’re admitting that despite claiming that the document ‘clearly stated’ this you don’t even have a copy of it and are relying on a memory from 1997.

    You won’t find a single word from any party spokesperson in the past 20 years at least stating that the party endorses the union. The party is not even designated Unionist in the assembly.

    So, basically, your assertions that the party advocates for the union are a lie.

  • Roy Walsh

    Well, if memory serves me better than yourself Comrade, it having been 1987 I had previously stated, look to Art. 16 and I’m sure you’ll find what I’m directing you to. It is there or maybe you forgot your spectacles today, as well as your manners.
    And not for the first time, this really is a point for a thread dealing with less mundane issues than the role of RUC/PSNI in killing unarmed people.

  • RegisterForThisSite

    Roy, re Ford that was then this is now, The DUP and SDLP would gladly stick the knife in today as would the UUP for Flegs, East Belfast and other reasons.

    In fact probably the only party who would stick up for him is SF, er… who he seems intent on sticking the knife into.

    I’ve pondered for a while if things might be stirring in the Alliance esp with Lo’s pre-election comments she seems keen to fish among the voters her party boss is busy annoying, but then again East Belfast is more important to him than to Lo.

    Comrade, well we should know about the OTRs soon enough and we will see how justified Ford was.

    With regards lengthy comment on Adams arrest, is “entirely appropriate” a personal judgment ie political or ministerial ie he does actually get involved when he wants to.

    And as he – for either political or ministerial reasons – has involved himself in the matter how does he feel about the DUP being invited to a garden party on the day of the arrest, wonder if he rang Robinson when someone told him to switch over to SKY News, wonder where Peter said he was, wonder if they all laughed

  • Comrade Stalin

    Roy,

    There are only 12 articles in the Constitution.

  • Comrade Stalin

    RegisterForThisSite,

    Sorry, you’ve lost me. I think I was trying to understand why you think the Justice Minister should intervene in the matter of the Police Ombudsman going to court.

  • Roy Walsh

    Yawn, ok, how about, you commence a new thread dealing with Alliance party constitutional matters, scan and upload the Alliance party’s constitution and let us read it ourselves, frankly, a political party, founded in the turmoil of the 1970′s and having only 12 Articles to deal with it’s purpose sounds a little politically light weight to be anything.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Stalin

    ‘The Justice Minister has no role intervening in any way either into the operational decisions of the Chief Constable…’

    How on earth is this an ‘operational decision’?

    We’re talking here about murders that happened decades ago.

    ‘… in terms of what information to release to the Police Ombudsman…’

    The Ombudsman has exactly the same security clearance as the CC. The CC has no right to withhold information to the Ombudsman.

    What’s happening here is that the CC (or more likely, others around him) are withholding evidence in a murder investigation.

    Or, actually, SIXTY murder investigations.

    Now, if there were one or two cases, you might get away with the much-overused ‘operational’ excuse, but SIXTY?

    No: clearly, this is widespread enough to suggest there’s a policy to withhold evidence from the Ombudsman.

    And matters of policing policy most certainly ARE within the purview of the Minister.

    So it’s more than fair to wonder why he has so little to say on the matter.

  • RegisterForThisSite

    @Comrade

    “Sorry, you’ve lost me. I think I was trying to understand why you think the Justice Minister should intervene in the matter of the Police Ombudsman going to court.”

    That’s alright Comrade, I’ll go over it again.

    When Ford said Adams arrest was “entirely appropriate” was he

    a) Speaking as a politician using his gifted ministerial position as a platform to launch an attack on another political party

    OR

    b) involving himself in a policing matter as Minister for Justice.

    If the answer is a) than he should lose the support of SF as he is no longer impartial and therefore has qualified himself out of the role.

    if the answer is b) than why has he not involved in a policing m atter which involves 60 murders (not one) and the police force (not a political opponent)

    The rest was pretty much how he felt as Minister of Justice when he found out that the DUP had been invited to a garden party at 10 Downing Street on the day of the arrest, and why having already involved himself in that case he had no follow-on comment on this.

    The rest was idle speculation at how he must have felt when as minister for justice he found out about Adam’s arrest most likely on SKY News and most likely his first call was to Robinson not knowing the DUP were availing of ringside seats……….must a hurt….a lot.

    More idle speculation is he’s running scared of the DUP because of East Belfast and his only MP, and how it’s the opposite of Anna Lo’s pre-election overtures to nationalists, trouble at the mill methinks

    But than again I don’t have your years of experience, so what do I know

  • RegisterForThisSite

    “The first Sinn Féin Mayor of Belfast was elected by Alliance votes.”

    That was third time lucky wasn’t it Comrade, the auld barbarians were fairly knocking on the gates by the time you got around to it.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Roy,

    Yawn, ok, how about, you commence a new thread dealing with Alliance party

    Not only are you a liar, you have the maturity of a spoilt teenager. I am simply asking you to furnish some sort of evidence for your claims, and you are prevaricating. I challenge you to provide a single shred of proof that Alliance is a Unionist party or otherwise advocates for the Union. Each time I ask you this you make excuses and dodge the question. That suggests that you are a person with no integrity.

    scan and upload the Alliance party’s constitution and let us read it ourselves,

    I don’t have permission to publish the constitution (because Article 12 implies that the party council may make it available for a fee – which is bizarre but there you go). But I have it in front of me here, in electronic form, and I can quote whatever parts out of it that you like. I repeat, once again, that there is no mention of constitutional matters or any other policy matter anywhere in the constitution.

    So for example here’s the opening part :

    1 INTRODUCTION
    1.1 The name of the Party shall be ‘The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland’.
    1.2 The Party was founded on the basis of the statement of principles dated 21 April 1970.
    1.3 The objectives of the Party shall be to heal the bitter divisions in our community and to promote the policies of the party as determined by the Council.

    Note the part in bold. Policy is determined by party council – not by the constitution.

    In any case, this is daft. I don’t need to provide evidence that Alliance is not a Unionist party, because there is plenty of evidence for this in the public domain. The party is considered neutral by both the DUP and Sinn Féin, that is why David Ford is the justice minister. The party has at least one senior member who would support a united Ireland, and I personally know other members who believe in reunification. The party is designated “other” in the assembly – not “Unionist” – and this has been true since 1998 when the Assembly got started. The party has never, to my knowledge, taken a public position in support of either the union, and it has affirmed of late that it never will. I don’t know a single member who defines themselves or their party as Unionist.

    So in the face of all of this public evidence that Alliance does not take a Unionist position, it is clear that the burden of proof is upon you, as the person contradicting this claim. You, not me, must provide evidence to substantiate your position that Alliance is deceiving the public – or withdraw it.

    Go ahead.

  • Roy Walsh

    Comrade, it appears you forgot the auld specs again today, this debate is unconnected with the current thread.
    The role of state forces in murder of unarmed, in threatening, citizens is a little more important than your rantings so, as above, should you wish to continue this debate, open a specific thread and we can harangue each other there.
    And, again, as above, don’t call me a liar, I only tell you what I clearly remember, if the Alliance party do not make this freely available it’s not different from any political party here.

  • RegisterForThisSite

    @Comrade
    Sorry, you’ve lost me. I think I was trying to understand why you think the Justice Minister should intervene in the matter of the Police Ombudsman going to court.

    Well is it necessary for him to ‘intervene.

    He didn’t intervene on the OTR letters…but had plenty to say about it

    He didn’t intervene on Adams arrest…but had plenty to say about it

    Not expecting him to intervene on the the fact that the Police refuse to co-operate with the State in the the case of 60 Murders, or to refuse to release information from the retired coppers meetings….But f@#k me if he had plenty to say on the other matters I would have thought someone would have said ….’you’d better say something’ ..How about something along the lines of “no-one is above the law” and it’s entirely appropriate for the State to expect it’s Police force to cooperate’

    Any Chance, surely he’s not still nervous about NI21, surely Alliance voters wouldn’t balk at a tiny tiny bit of balance in his verbal output, does East Belfast come before Justice for Ford.

  • streetlegal

    Matt Baggott, like many undistinguished policing and judicial officials before him, was co-opted by Downing Street and placed under the direction of British Intelligence. Just another small man in search of a knighthood.

  • RegisterForThisSite

    @Streetlegal

    Problem is knighthoods for services rendered are getting scarce in NI, just ask Tom Elliot, and there’s a few party leaders approaching that time of life, so I imagine Robinson and Ford have already put a request in, but I think Baggott may well end up leaving under a cloud with no baubles unless he gets lucky with several live court cases, I mean can you give a knighthood to a copper who has found himself in the dock so many times for failing in his job.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Roy,

    And, again, as above, don’t call me a liar, I only tell you what I clearly remember

    Yes, but I am telling you facts and I have shown you evidence, in detail, that exposes the fact that your recollection is either faulty or irrelevant. I have refuted your claims about the Alliance constitution, all of which you are dismissing out of hand without providing any documentary evidence to support your incorrect claims.

    So just to sum up; you are a person who propagates false statements despite being corrected; you fail to produce evidence; and you resort to misdirection and immature responses when asked to explain yourself; and you fail to be a man and accept corrections or the possibility that you could be wrong. Given that this is the case I fail to understand why anyone would take anything you say seriously; you are clearly unable to engage in a fair debate.

    I reiterate one more time. Alliance is not a Unionist party. Alliance does not have anything in its constitution allying it to the Union or any other constitutional position. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

    RegisterForThisSite

    When Ford said Adams arrest was “entirely appropriate” was he

    This is a statement of fact. It is entirely appropriate for the police to arrest anyone if they believe that the person could either be charged with a crime or may have information about a crime, whether it is a binman or a party leader. That isn’t an intervention or a political statement.

    He didn’t intervene on the OTR letters…but had plenty to say about it

    I recall one statement to the effect that the matter was nothing to do with the DoJ and that the British government was wrong to implement this in secret. That doesn’t meet my definition of “plenty”.

    He didn’t intervene on Adams arrest…but had plenty to say about it

    I recall one statement saying that it was a matter for the police to follow whatever line of investigation is open to them and that politicians should not interfere. That doesn’t meet my definition of “plenty” either.

    So basically, you are saying David Ford should resign because so far he hasn’t issued a one-line placeholder statement on the investigation. In other words, your sense of proportion and restraint is entirely well-balanced and appropriate for the circumstances. I have never ever heard a politician resign on the basis of failing to make a statement on a matter that was outside of his control.

    n the the fact that the Police refuse to co-operate with the State in the the case of 60 Murders

    Because it is not for the Justice Minister to comment on this matter; it is for the courts to find fact and to make a ruling – as yet we are talking about an allegation that has been put that the Chief Constable has acted unlawfully. The justice minister cannot direct the police on operational matters and cannot prejudge the outcome of a court hearing without running the risk of inflicting serious damage on independence of both.

    Billy:

    How on earth is this an ‘operational decision’?

    We’re talking here about murders that happened decades ago.

    The operational decision pertains as to whether or not the Chief Constable has the right to block access to evidence or related material on the basis of security or other concerns. The Justice Minister cannot direct the Chief Constable in respect of this matter.

    Nationalists – correctly – demanded policing which is free from political interference. That is exactly what we have now got. The Justice Minister has almost no powers over the police – these are exercised by the Police Board, again the body set up under the Patten proposals and fully endorsed by nationalists. The system is working as it is supposed to, namely with independent and, ultimately, judicial oversight. It is very strange, therefore, to hear nationalists demanding the Justice Minister take an active role here having spent decades campaigning for politics to be taken out of policing decisions.

    The Ombudsman has exactly the same security clearance as the CC. The CC has no right to withhold information to the Ombudsman.

    Clearly you are wrong or there wouldn’t be a court hearing in progress to establish whether or not this is the case.

    I happen to agree with you – the CC should not be withholding this information – but that doesn’t mean that he has “no right” in law to do so.

  • Roy Walsh

    Dear God, you cannot take the advice above, the state paid guardians of the peace in this part of Ireland are hiding evidence from the public who fund them, they are refusing to provide such evidence from other state actors entitled to fullest cooperation from the same force as it is an obligation imposed by Statute and previous Court decisions.
    And, if I’m not a man, see you in University St. on Wed at 2.

  • Sp12

    “it is very strange, therefore, to hear nationalists demanding the Justice Minister take an active role here having spent decades campaigning for politics to be taken out of policing decisions.”

    No, they’re asking why the Justice Minister publicly comments on some cases, but keeps schtum on more serious cases.
    But you know that already, which is why you wrote so much text to avoid answering a simple question.

  • Roy Walsh

    Let the large, clearly a little confused about his own party’s policy, as is their furher, Alliance for a shared approach to the past

    We want to see agreement on a shared, inclusive process to deal with our past, which includes input from all Parties and the British and Irish Government. We also believe consideration should be given to a new agency to deal with legacy cases.
    From their website, what is their party leader doing to include the Irish or British governments, as per John Leckey’s comments, seems he’s not chasing them for funding or answers to deal with the shared approach to the past.
    And not coming out in support of existing agencies dealing with legacy cases.

  • Roy Walsh

    Ought to have read, ‘let the lad be’