The RUC and the Cosa Nostra

On 6th June 1990 there were, on conservative estimates ,100  RUC informers among the PIRA in Belfast.

Each had a team of  handlers, probably four in number, to cover sickness, leave etc. Four hundred so far.

The handlers had bosses; sergeants, inspectors, chief inspectors, superintendents etc.  Let’s estimate a further fifty senior officers.

Four hundred and fifty so far.

Then the meetings had to be covered by E4A and others, each one, day by day. Maybe another 100 officers , who would have seen the likes of Scappaticci, Sean Maguire, Brian Gillen etc “singing like canaries” in car parks in Hillsborough, Holywood , Helens Bay etc.

Five hundred and fifty.

The there was the “Hen House” where women, in serried ranks typed up the transcripts of the recordings of the meetings. Another fifty, at least.

Six hundred now.

Move to the civil servants in the NIO and others who read the ‘product’.

Then the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff…

I’m rounding it up at seven hundred.

Maybe a third are dead.

But out there , today are several hundred people who could help the victims. They could tell the awful story of state involvement in supposedly terrorist murders.

Only a few  have spoken out.

Why? Like the Cosa Nostra , the silent ones  are motivated by money. Patten payments. Big pensions.

Before turning attention and criticism on the republicans, victims should ask themselves-why the silence? The answer is that the relevant RUC officers and civil servants are corrupt. Like the Mafia.

Who? Think of Flanagan, White, McQuillan , Matchett and Mains, all still earning  from the misfortunes of the victims and failing to tell the truth.

This is the real tragedy of the Troubles.

Advertisements

Marking twenty eight years

In any other jurisdiction, there are cold case reviews on a regular basis. Even the PSNI is embracing this idea , with the recent activity over the death of Inga Maria Hauser, found dead in April 1988.

As someone said , recently, sad as it is, why her?

The answer of course is that the huge lump of Troubles deaths involve the state and the vast store of documents, implicating it. There are stores  in Sprucefield, Seapark and Thiepval, where the army sits on a million copies. The state, in the form of Hamilton, Harris and the faceless people of MI5 will keep the lid on, as best they can.

All the citizen can do is keep probing.

What is additionally disappointing is that the new leaders appear to have gone to Spooks Academy.

Consider the letter written by the deputy director of the PPS in the case of Seamus Ludlow. His understanding of hearsay would shame a first year law student. How did he become deputy director and regurgitate all the lines of the state? Can you guess? Let’s hope he gets well spanked in the High Court.

As part of the week to mark twenty eight years since the murders of my parents, I am posting a secret document, giving an insight into how the state worked.

There will be other posts in this anniversary week.

 

Perjury-what me?

The Guardian ran an article by Henry McDonald on 21st August entitled “Stakeknife could face perjury charges , says senior police officer”.

Before you ask, the ‘senior UK police officer’ is not named. Quelle surprise.

So the theory is this. Scappaticci went to court in 2003 to force the NI security minister to state publicly that he was not Stakeknife and therefore not an agent.

Now, says McDonald, he could be prosecuted for going to court and “denying he was a spy”.

But hold on a minute. He denied that he was a spy and the NI minister confirmed that.

So who would be prosecuted?

The NI minister who wrongly said he was not a spy, when he was? Or Scap who falsely said that he wasn’t when he was?

So would one or both be prosecuted? Lets look at the legislation

The Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979

Perjury

  1. – (1) Any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding who wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.

(2) The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.

(3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this Article, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.

(4) A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in Northern Ireland for the purposes of a judicial proceeding-

(a) in another part of Her Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside Her Majesty’s dominions; or

(c) in a tribunal of any foreign state;

shall, for the purposes of this Article, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in Northern Ireland.

(5) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court at the trial.

 

 

False written statements tendered in evidence
  1. – (1) Any person who in a written statement tendered in evidence in criminal proceedings by virtue of-

(a) section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, or

(b) Article 33 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981,

wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who in a written statement made in Northern Ireland and tendered in evidence in the Republic of Ireland in any criminal proceedings wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) or (2) shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both.

(4) This Article is without prejudice to Article 3, and paragraph (1) applies whether the written statement is made in Northern Ireland, Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland

 

Aiders, abettors, suborners, etc.

  1. – (1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another-person to commit an offence against this Order shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a principal offender.

(2) Any person who incites another person to commit an offence against this Order shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both.

Corroboration
  1. A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Order, or of any offence declared by any other enactment to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false.

 

So it seems that the Minister could be prosecuted for falsely stating in judicial proceedings that he was not a spy and that Scap could be prosecuted for falsely making the same claim. In addition her civil servants and members of MI5, Special Branch, the Army or MI6 could also be prosecuted.

Sadly , the response of Jon Boutcher, if accurately reported, leaves a great deal to be desired.

The devil is in the detail of Article 14. At least two witnesses are needed for the Crown to prove perjury. Who will they be?

Answers please….?

Meanwhile one has to ask who sponsored the Guardian article- dark forces, Henry?