BILLY WRIGHT POSITION PAPER
JANUARY 2008
|
|
Billy Wright Inquiry – update:
21st January 2008, Banbridge Courthouse
The position paper
The position paper sets down the process followed by the Inquiry in attempting to recover documentation from the Polices Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). This detailed 75 page document follows the preliminary hearing in October 2007 in which the Inquiry stated they would reconsider their position regarding the PSNI responses to date once the PSNI internal review, conducted by former Assistant Chief Constable Sam Kincaid, had had an opportunity to provide its report to the Inquiry.
The focus of the position paper is on “intelligence documents” meaning information gathered by the RUC on risks to the safety and security of Billy Wright and on the intentions and military activity of the INLA in 1997. These documents are focused on as that is where the gaps in information are most significant.[1] It should be noted from the outset that Formal Notices were served upon the Chief Constable on 26th August and 25th November 2005, on 26th May 2006 and on 16th April, 24th August and 1st November 2007.
The Inquiry notes in the opening chapters of the position paper that it had “spelt out clearly” at the preliminary hearing in June 2005 “the hope and expectation that there would be full disclosure of all relevant material evidence from those agencies who held or had access to it”. Despite this, the Inquiry considers that it has reached the point were they have not been able “to lay before the public any evidence of substance”. This damning report presents a picture of an apparent systemic failure on behalf of the RUC/PSNI to collect, collate, record, store, share, monitor or evaluate security information obtained by it from many sources. This statement is substantiated by the attached Overview Table which highlights the most significant findings in the paper.[2]
It is very clear from the information detailed in the position paper that the BWI have made considerable detailed requests for information which have been pursued appropriately. It is also very clear that they are extremely frustrated by the lack of appropriate responses to their requests. The PSNI have undoubtedly caused considerable delay to the commencement of the public hearings and incurred and caused considerable additional expense both for themselves and the Inquiry – both of which are drawn down from public funds.
[1] 1.22
[2] To fully appreciate the shambolic and chaotic nature of data handling by the RUC/PSNI the position paper should be considered in its entirety.
For Peace Justice & Human Rights
