Mr Bradley also said he respected but disagreed with Belfast lawyer, Peter Smith QC, who in yesterdays Irish Times said the Eames-Bradley proposals relating to truth recovery could threaten an individuals “basic courtroom rights to face his or her accuser, and to challenge them by means of questioning their lawyer” and “would give rise to grave disquiet” among lawyers and human rights activists.
“I think his interpretation of the report is wrong,” said Mr Bradley. “In the truth recovery [proposals] there is no placing of blame on any individual. That is clear in the report: there is placing of blame on organisations and that is completely different.”
In individual cases as well as thematic cases? And what about the point Brian noted – “The legacy commission needed only the lower burdens of proof that would satisfy most relatives.” It raises the question of how much ‘truth’ they’d be pursuing during their “fixed five-year mandate”.. and how reliant their proposals are on the willing participation of those who have, up to now, been more notable by their wilful avoidance of truth..