Barra McGrory

New inquests -a level playing field for unionists?

Readers may recall that Barra McGrory, on the basis of a Panorama programme, requested the Chief Constable to investigate the behaviour of the Army. When I asked him to carry out a similar exercise in respect of Martin McGuinness, he refused, then said that he had not refused , then delegated the decision to a senior member of his department.

Now the Attorney General has decided, on the basis of the same programme , to order new inquests into the deaths of Daniel Rooney and Patrick McVeigh.

I have today requested that the A-G order fresh inquests into the murders of my parents on the basis of extensive publications , over the years, asserting that McGuinness was head of northern command PIRA and that he approved the murders of my parents. I also request that the voluminous State intelligence on McGuinness is made available to the Coroner.

Let’s see how even handed the response is.

McGuinness, the murderer

I first asked the DPP and the Chief Constable to make further enquiries into what I allege is the involvement of McGuinness in the murders of  my parents, in May this year.

After insufficient responses from the PSNI, I gave them one final opportunity to respond, before I set out here the allegations. That matter has been with the DCC, Harris, for several weeks.

Having undecided a decision he had made against me, Barra McGrory delegated responsibility , on 5th June, to his Senior Assistant Director, Stephen Herron. He promptly went on leave. On 12th September, Mr Herron promised me a reply “within two weeks”.

I am still waiting.

I suppose I have to join the queue behind the decision whether to prosecute Adams, the review of Adams in respect of his brother’s case and the review into the cases associated with Ms Cahill .

Public Prosecution Service and Ms Cahill

Today’s statement from the PPS appears to be a tacit admission that there was a lack of supervision and joined up thinking in respect of the cases relating to Ms Cahill.

Once again it also appears that the Director is professionally embarrassed by his past representation of Sinn Fein/PIRA and is unable to carry out his function as a government law officer.

Meantime the letter promised to me by the PPS by 26 September has not arrived and no explanation has been offered.

Republicans and the test for prosecution

The Public Prosecution Service has a two step test for prosecution. First, they consider whether or not the evidence which can be adduced in court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction. Secondly they consider if prosecution is required in the “public interest”.

Therefore there could be a case where, on the face of it,there is  compelling evidence against X but the prosecution does not take place because it is not in the public interest. This includes “where details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security”. [Sometimes referred to as the ‘Shawcross doctrine’]

It does not require a great leap of imagination to consider that members of Sinn Fein/IRA may already have benefitted from this second limb or may do so in the very near future.

What could be more in the public interest than the protection of “the peace process”?

Let’s watch.

Mairia Cahill -some words of caution

Those of you who read my blog would know my views on Sinn Fein and PIRA. However there are some disturbing aspects of this case.

  • Mairia was a republican
  • She was related to Joe Cahill, a founder of the Provisional IRA and close friend of Adams
  • The alleged rape took place in 1997
  • The alleged internal inquiry or whatever one wants to call it, took place when Joe Cahill was still alive
  • Would not Joe have wanted to protect his grand niece?
  • She made no complaint until an unknown date , perhaps four to five years ago, Over ten years after the event.
  • A decision to prosecute was made, therefore someone in the PPS thought that there was a reasonable prospect of success.
  • It is alleged that the Director did not involve himself in the prosecutorial decision
  • Mairia ultimately declined to give evidence against Martin Morris, the reason for this is not known
  • Consequently he was [ rightly] acquitted
  • She now wishes to make the same case in public and in the media which she was unwilling to make before a jury
  • If we are ever to become a humane a sophisticated society, we need to observe the rule of law.
  • Trial by media , even Nolan, is not the way to go.

Those rushing to judgement for whatever their personal beliefs ought to consider these matters.

Martin McGuinness and Barra McGrory

On 22 November 2013, the DPP, Barra McGrory, requested the PSNI to investigate alleged British Army killings, based on allegations made in a BBC Panorama documentary. On 18 May 2014 I asked the DPP to conduct a similar exercise, based on allegations made by Ed Moloney, in his book, that McGuinness had approved the murder of my parents. McGrory wrote to me on 28 May 2014, refusing to so do. He said:”I do not therefore consider that any exercise of the power bestowed on me as DPP to require an investigation is necessary in this case”. He wished me well in my quest for justice. That , as far as he was concerned , was that.  I pointed out by return that at all material times , he was McGuinness’s legal adviser. I expressed surprise that he had made the decision personally. He replied , denying that he had made “any final decision in respect of the issue”. [When is a decision not a decision?]

He then delegated responsibility for the decision to the Senior Assistant Director. Despite promises, I still await a decision.

The affair highlights two important issues.

1. The poor quality of decision making by Barra McGrory whilst acting as a law officer.

2. The contrast between the twenty four hour decision in the Army case and the five month delay in mine.