|
|
|
ROBERT HAMILL INQUIRY
Opening Hearing, 24th May 2005
The Robert Hamill Inquiry held its opening hearing on Tuesday, 24th May, in Craigavon courthouse. British Irish rights watch’s Director, Jane Winter, attended the hearing. At the hearing, the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir Edwin Jowitt, read an opening statement and introduced various members of the Inquiry team. The full text of his speech is posted on the Inquiry’s website: www.roberthamillinquiry.org
The Chair began by noting the background to the Inquiry and stating that he and the other panel members hoped that it “may do a little to help people look forward with hope” in Northern Ireland. He then introduced the other panel members and the secretary and solicitor to the Inquiry. He read out the terms of reference and stated that the need for the Inquiry to be set up by government arose from three facts: (a) the Weston Park agreement and Judge Cory’s recommendations; (b) only a statutory Inquiry would have the necessary powers to pursue the investigation; (c) the necessity for proper funding for the Inquiry.
The Chair then emphasised the independence of the Inquiry, both from the Northern Ireland Office and from any other person or institution. He also stressed that as it was a public inquiry, all hearings would be conducted in public unless, where exceptional circumstances and good reasons are shown, it is necessary to hear some evidence in private or in a manner that protects the anonymity of the witness.
The Chair stated that none of the panel have prior knowledge or experience of Northern Ireland. They undertook a visit to Portadown in January 2005, to look at the spot where Robert Hamill was attacked. Should they be requested to do so, they are willing to make a return visit in the presence of interested parties. They also wish to see the police Land Rover that was used on the night in question (or one like it). In order to place Robert Hamill’s death in context, the panel members have been reading a number of books on Northern Ireland’s recent history.
The Chair expressed his condolences to the Hamill family before requesting that any person who has information relevant to the Inquiry’s work or who has suggestions about potential lines of inquiry, should immediately contact the Inquiry’s Solicitor, Zaqia Rashid. He laid out the role of Counsel to the Inquiry, Ashley Underwood QC, emphasising that the proceedings were not like a criminal or civil trial. He further stated that “interested parties” would not be entitled to question witnesses as a matter of course – this would be done by Counsel to the Inquiry and potentially by the Inquiry panel members themselves. However, “interested parties” may make a request to the inquiry panel so that they can question a particular witness and such requests will be considered on their own merits. Similarly, if anyone wishes to call his or her own witnesses, they will need to give a very good justification for why this is necessary. Save for material protected by public interest immunity, witness statements will be given to interested parties and their solicitors, on condition of confidentiality. Some witness statements may have to be redacted to protect the identity of the witness. Witnesses giving evidence will not be obliged to answer questions where they may incriminate themselves.
The Chair stated that once the hearing of evidence is concluded, the Inquiry panel will consider whether to proceed straight away to submissions from Counsel to the Inquiry and other interested persons, or whether to allow a short interval for the preparation of those submissions. He also laid out what the Inquiry currently consider to be the principal issues for investigation, emphasising that other issues will doubtless emerge. The issues he identified are:
1. Could and should the RUC have done more to avert Robert Hamill's death by way of better policing provision on the night of the 26th/27th April 1997?
2. If so, was the failure to make that provision negligent or deliberate?
3. Could and should the RUC officers at the scene of the attack on Robert Hamill have done anything, or refrained from doing something, so as to prevent his death?
4. If so, was the act or omission negligent or deliberate?
5. Could and should RUC officers present at the scene have done more to identify and facilitate the prosecution of perpetrators?
6. If so, was the omission negligent or deliberate?
7. Did any RUC officer attempt to obstruct the investigation of the death of Robert Hamill?
8. If so, was any such attempt successful?
9. Could and should the RUC have done more to investigate firstly Robert Hamill's death and secondly any attempted obstruction into the investigation itself?
10. If so, was the omission negligent or deliberate?
11. What recommendations should be made?
The Inquiry will sit from Tuesdays to Fridays, from 10:30 am to 4:30 pm, with a one hour lunch break. It will sit in four-week periods, with a one week break in between each period. The hearings are expected to take place in Belfast, and will not begin before 15th November 2005.
The Chair then adjourned the hearing until 2:00 pm, when anyone who wished to do so were invited to make submissions. Five submissions were made.
Barra McGrory, the solicitor acting for the Hamill family, simply placed that fact on record.
Mr McGill BL, instructed by Ciaran Rafferty & Co, Solicitors, appeared for a potential witness referred to only as Mr X. Mr Daly BL, led by Seamus Treacy QC SC and instructed by J Doherty & Co, Soliciotrs, appeared on behalf of Mrs X. Their submissions concerned the right to representation and costs. Maggie O’Conor of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, submitted that the list of issues was too narrow. The Chair indicated that the list would be added to if necessary as the work of the Inquiry progressed, and invited her to submit any suggestions for additional issues to Counsel to the Tribunal, who later said he would welcome such submissions from anyone. Jane Winter of BIRW also expressed concern about the list of issues and said that she would be making written submissions about that and about the issue of immunity, particularly in relation to holders of high public office. The Chair said that if anyone applied for immunity or anonymity, the application would be treated on a case-by-case basis. Jane Winter also raised concerns about the Inquiry’s plans to conduct a paperless operation, saying that not everyone had access to the internet. The Chair undertook to consider making a copy of the transcript of the hearings available for inspection in a public place, such as a library. Finally, she urged the Inquiry to resist any attempt on the part of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to redact (censor) their final report, citing the over-zealous and inappropriate redactions made to Judge Cory’s reports. The Chair said that their final report would contain no redactions but the Secretary of State would have the final say on whether the report would be redacted, or even published, although he thought it unlikely that the report would remain unpublished. He advised her to make representations concerning redactions to the Secretary of State.
For Peace Justice & Human Rights
