Bloody Sunday: Crown Servants and the denial of truth
01 January 2001
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry continued last month after the Christmas recess. The Inquiry has considerable powers but so did its predecessor, the Widgery Tribunal, which was used by those in power to justify the events of 30 January 1972. There are two fundamental problems facing it. First, it is up against the interlocking network of power in Whitehall which is socialised and practised in secrecy and subterfuge. Second, it can only investigate the events on 30 January 1972 and cannot consider other events -such as Kincora, the removal of Stalker or the murder of Pat Finucane - and hence will not recognise the patterns in the methods and techniques used in the denial of the true facts to the public by Crown Servants.
The Ministry of Defence appeared before the Tribunal last month. Although not formally represented at the enquiry, it was permitted to make an opening statement. Mr Ian Burnett, the MOD’s lawyer, said that “the MOD of today has no case to put to, or to advance before this tribunal, nor does it have a position to defend”. This is technically true but a legal nicety because the army as a whole is not represented as a single party, as it was in the Widgery tribunal. It is the individual soldier who is represented. As Catherine McKenna, British Irish Rights Watch lawyer, has commented:
This sidesteps the fact that the MOD was then and is now the government department responsible for the army, and hence the soldiers. Added to that, the soldiers did not act as individuals on Bloody Sunday. They operated as an Army.
This position distances the MOD from the responsibility of what happened but at the same time it can still play a fundamental part in the Tribunal such as arranging and funding the soldiers’ legal representation, providing a team of civil servants to attend the tribunal on a daily basis and supporting the soldiers in their successful legal action to secure anonymity.
During his opening address Mr Burnett emphasised that the MOD was trying to help the enquiry all that it can and said that it was unthinkable that servants of the Crown would try and frustrate the work of the inquiry. But there is already evidence that this may be precisely what is happening. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have issued Public Interest Immunity Certificates - basically gagging orders - to prevent certain information being released to the Tribunal.
PIICs gained considerably notoriety in Britain when two people were prosecuted in the Arms to Iraq affair and it emerged that the Home Secretary signed a PIIC which prevented information vital to their defence entering the public domain. PIICs have also been used extensively in the past in Northern Ireland to prevent the full truth from emerging in highly controversial incidents. For example, one was issued in relation to the inquest of Gervaise McKerr. Two were issued in the civil action brought by John Thorburn - Stalker’s second in command in the Shoot-to-Kill inquiry - against John Hermon for alleged defamation. One was also issued in the civil action brought by Kevin Taylor against James Anderton, Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester police, for misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution and conspiracy. Taylor claimed that he was investigated and prosecuted in order to discredit Stalker and hence remove him from the shoot-to-kill enquiry.
Mr Burnett represented the Treasury Solicitor in the Taylor civil action. Stalker’s statement would have been approved by the Treasury Solicitor’s office before it emerged into the public domain.
The MOD has told the Tribunal that they can no longer trace all the photographs which they took on Bloody Sunday. The Greater Manchester police similarly “lost” many key documents in the Taylor/Stalker affair. This did not come to light until after the Sampson enquiry into Stalker’s alleged disciplinary offences and two police enquiries into the failure of criminal prosecutions against Taylor and