Director's Report January 2000

Home Next Previous

January 2000

Although British Irish RIGHTS WATCH was formally constituted in 1992, our work actually started in 1990. It seems hardly possible that we have been doing this work for ten years, and it is even stranger to reflect that for around half that time there has been a ceasefire in Northern Ireland, something that seemed scarcely possible a decade ago, and yet our work is as vital as ever. We have always said that we would be there for as long as it takes, but that once there was no longer any need for our services, we would bow out. That is still our position - we are working to put ourselves out of business - but we are more cautious than we used to be about predicting just how long that will take. As I write, we are on the brink of yet another crisis in the peace process. It is becoming more and more obvious that the IRA will not de-commission for fear of creating a dangerous split in the republican movement. This has probably been the reality ever since their first ceasefire in 1994. Ironically, perhaps, many are more fearful of a breakdown in the loyalist ceasefire. Sadly, we have spoken to both Catholics and Protestants recently who still go in fear of their lives. We say that mutual respect for each other's human rights is the only way forward, and we will continue, come hell or high water, to work to ensure that everyone's human rights in Northern Ireland are protected and respected. I am sure that day will come; I only hope that it will not take another ten years.

On 18th December I went to Dublin to discuss with the Justice for the Forgotten campaign their response to an offer by the Irish government to hold a private investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974, in which 33 poeple died and many more were injured. There have been persistent allegations of collusion in the murder and of a cover-up afterwards. The campaign want a public inquiry, which we believe is inevitable. However, after careful consideration, they have decided to co-operate with a private inquiry to be conducted by the retiring Chief Justice of Ireland, Liam Hamilton. He will report to a joint committee of the Oireachtas, at which the campaign will be legally represented, and they will decide whether to establish a public inquiry. The campaign believe that there is only one logical outcome to this process and that it will bring them closer to the public inquiry they seek. They have asked us to prepare a detailed report on the bombings to assist Chief Justice Hamilton in his task.

This month saw spectacular leaks from John Stevens' police investigation into the murder in 1989 of lawyer Patrick Finucane. Apparently he has reported six people to the Director of Public Prosecutions as potentially to be charged with the murder. He has also uncovered new forensic evidence, nearly eleven years after the murder. These revelations raise more questions than they answer, particularly about whether or not John Stevens' hands were tied on the two previous occasions when he allegedly investigated the case. It is now almost a year since the British government promised us a response to our own report on the matter, in which we alleged that Patrick Finucane was one among many who died in the late 1980s as the result of targeting by a British army intelligence unit. We asked the government to examine its own files, confident tha if only a fraction of our allegations were correct, a public inquiry would have to be established. The then Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, promised us a swift response. We are still waiting. What have they got to hide? We have just completed a second report, which will shortly be posted on our website, which shows that the need for a full judicial inquiry, and support within the legal profession worldwide, is ever more pressing.

The arrest in December of loyalist Jim Fulton and others on drugs and gun charges has led to speculation that he is wanted for questioning by Deputy Chief Constable Colin Port, who heads the murder investigation into Rosemary Nelson's case. However, Colin Port has denied that he wants to interview Jim Fulton. What is more significant is that the story of his alleged interest may have leaked from his own team. If so, this will be the third time that his investigation has been potentially undermined in this way. The first anniversary of this cruel murder is almost upon us. It is to be hoped that it will not pass with the murder unsolved, but it is beginning to look that way. I have written an article about her murder for the magazine Legal Action, which will be published in their March issue, to coincide with the anniversary.

Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, made an informal visit to London earlier this month. I and others met him to brief him on the latest developments in the Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson cases, in which he continues to take a keen interest.

I also briefed the Special Rapporteur on the court case in Northern Ireland concerning the declaration made by QCs (senior counsel) when they are appointed. As presently worded, QCs must swear to "well and truly serve her majesty the Queen", a formulation which is offensive to nationalists and far from accurate in its description of the job. QC, of course, stands for Queen's Counsel, which is also problematic. Two barristers who were appointed last year to be QCs, a post for which no-one disputes they are both eminently qualified, declined to make the declaration, and in consequence have been unable to practice as seniors. They are challenging the decisions and actions of both the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, in the Northern Ireland courts. Later today an extraordinary meeting of the Bar Counsel of Northern Ireland will meet to decide whether to continue to underwrite the two lawyers' costs in the case. It is to be hoped that they will continue to support their colleagues in their attempts to ensure that the bar is open to all lawyers of ability, without recourse to medieval and divisive practices.

The inquest into the shooting of DiarmuidI also briefed the Special Rapporteur on the court case in Northern Ireland concerning the declaration made by QCs (senior counsel) when they are appointed. As presently worded, QCs must swear to "well and truly serve her majesty the Queen", a formulation which is offensive to nationalists and far from accurate in its description of the job. QC, of course, stands for Queen's Counsel, which is also problematic. Two barristers who were appointed last year to be QCs, a post for which no-one disputes they are both eminently qualified, declined to make the declaration, and in consequence have been unable to practice as seniors. They are challenging the decisions and actions of both the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, in the Northern Ireland courts. Later today an extraordinary meeting of the Bar Counsel of Northern Ireland will meet to decide whether to continue to underwrite the two lawyers' costs in the case. It is to be hoped that they will continue to support their colleagues in their attempts to ensure that the bar is open to all lawyers of ability, without recourse to medieval and divisive practices.

It was a pleasure to meet with Peter Eikenberry of the New York City Bar Human Rights Committee on 7th January. He continues to take an interest in the issues that he and his delegation enquired into when they came on their mission to Northern Ireland in 1998.

On 18th January I gave a public lecture for the British Institute of Human Rights at Kings College London on human rights and the peace process, before a well-informed and concerned audience. A (ruthlessly!) edited version of my speech appeared in the Independent newspaper, and as a result I was asked to participate in a forthcoming radio programme for the BBC World Service on human rights.

I recently attended a seminar organised jointly by Justice, Liberty and the 1990 Trust on draft Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Protocol would create a stand-alone equality right, instead of the current position where equality issues can only be raised in tandem with another right, such as the right to a fair trial. It is to be hoped that the UK government will support this Protocol, in line with its commitment to better equality rights, and, if it is passed, will incorporate it into domestic law.

Home Next Previous

For Peace Justice & Human Rights

Site last updated 21 March, 2002 | ITSUVO |