psni

The wonderful world of the PPS

Aside from the considerable interest the press and public would have taken had Barra appeared as a witness for the defence or the prosecution  [see Larkin para 4.49-4.51] in the trial of Liam Adams, a number of other points arise from the Starmer and Larkin reports.

1. Why was Gerry Adams, Barra’s former client, not called in the second trial? The answer to the justice committee from the Deputy director was “technical reasons” [ a well known legal term] and the volume of potential disclosure. One wonders if this disclosure related to Gerry’s terrorist activities and/or his usefulness to the state. It may well be another example of where intelligence held by the state intrudes into the administration of justice.

2. Whilst taking responsibility for the AA/BB/Cahill shambles Barra blamed the two prosecuting barristers. Asked by the justice committee about his civil servants , his response was that of the three involved , one had retired and the other two were not in the places they had been when the events happened. This is an obscure remark. Does it mean that they have been sent to the PPS equivalent of the Russian Front or Siberia? He went on to tell the committee that neither would be disciplined because their actions “did not raise issues of indiscipline”. So there you have it. No harm will befall the civil servants, they will eventually retire on their inflation proofed pensions. Meanwhile they may be performing incompetently in your case, dear reader. Their names have never been made public. Meanwhile the two barristers face a public disciplinary hearing.

3. Moving on from that demimonde , Barra was asked a number of questions by Edwin Poots. Barra initially declined to respond when Poots  asked him what ‘he put his thing in me” might mean. Having unsuccessfully appealed to the chairman for protection, he stated that it was a description of penetration. Poots point was that that remark by the complainant re Liam, her father, constituted a complaint of rape and that it had been heard by Gerry, bringing him within the ambit of the then legislation on with holding information. Larkin concluded that Aine’s evidence re Gerry called at the very least for clarification.

4. Alban Maginness told Barra that Larkin’s report gave the PPS “a clean bill of health”. Let’s examine that. The real nub of the PPS performance is set out by Larkin at paras 6.17- 6.22. Larkin notes that in relation to the assessment of the evidence against Gerry, neither the acting director nor senior counsel appear, from the acting deputy director’s minute, to have been provided with the two transcribed interviews of Aine. Nor did senior counsel have access to a minute from the directing officer. So , another PPS communication failure. Larkin was not asked to comment on the decision not to prosecute Gerry but it is clear that had communications been working properly , at the least the PPS would have sought clarification from Aine or Gerry. Larkin describes the “obvious steps” that should have been taken at 6.40. This all leaves out of account Larkin’s view that the PPS did not follow its own procedures.

5 Enter the PSNI, stage left. The police told the PPS that Gerry Adams had “quite rightly…Aine’s welfare at the forefront throughout”. Contrast that astonishing statement with his performance under cross-examination in the first trial. Is this a genuinely held belief by the PSNI or was it another smokescreen? They lobbied the PPS for no prosecution of Gerry “in the public interest” Did it fall within example [x] in the PPS list of some grounds for not prosecuting in the public interest ” where details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security”?

6. A number of the members of the justice committee voiced concern at the performance of the PPS. It is hard to disagree.

6. Larkin’s report was spun by the PPS as a vindication of its activities. It is no such thing.

Martin McGuinness a sense of outrage?

Given the remarks by participants in BBC Spotlight and previous accusations by me and others, what does it take for McGuinness to be arrested and questioned?

You might think that the DUP and the UUP would be outraged on behalf of their constituents but they are silent. I wonder why?

Will this community never face the truth?

Let me be clear, as politicians are keen to say.

Martin McGuinness is a multiple murderer who was in charge of northern command PIRA and a member of the army council. He probably retains those roles.

He was instrumental in the killing of my parents. He has been accused of all these matters before yet he has not chosen to contest the allegations in court.

I wonder does he have an assurance from the state that he will not be prosecuted?

Shall we ask Barra McGrory, his former lawyer? Now , God help us , Director of [some] Public Prosecutions.

Twenty five years ago, a running commentary

So, having been told, in court,  by Alan White, Deputy Director DPP, as it then was, of the bombing, I made my way to the RVH. My Dad was dead and it was a question of finding my Mum and ascertaining her condition. There was confusion as to where she was but I found her eventually. She was under the care of Dr Coppell [a ex BRA boy ] and his excellent team. I was then taken from the RVH to the morgue , under the care of Gerry Sillery an old Forth River class mate and sub divisional commander for B division. I identified my Dad, having been warned not to touch him, for forensic reasons.

I returned to the RVH and to my terminally ill mother.

In the middle of the night I was sitting in a quiet area of the RVH, trying to gather my thoughts. A figure in a track suit approached. It was Denis Maloney, solicitor. He had been trying to find me. That gesture was immensely comforting. He had lost his parents in the British Midland crash the previous year. His parents’ grave is not far from my parents. Today, as usual, I left two red roses on my parents’ grave , then visited the Maloney grave.

So ended 6th June 1990.

I’m not by any means a special case but I hope that by publishing this discourse I will draw attention to the horrors which people suffered in these cases.

It is striking to me how many people came to my aid and probably how few ever thought that the state was complicit.

I have spoken to a number of ex RUC officers over the last year and every one has disappeared. I wonder why?

I notice also that there is a RUC GC service in St Marks in Newtownards tomorrow. I wonder why I don’t get an  invite?

Sinn Fein/IRA’s touts

Even as I write, in England, Boys and Girls , educated at Oxbridge, are wrestling with a problem.

It is this.

Given that sooner or later the enormity of the participation of senior Sinn Fein/IRA personnel as state touts will emerge, how should the state  manage it? Also, how do we stop the Irish rabbiting on about the past?

Clearly, blanket denial is not an answer.

These clever Boys and Girls, schooled from childhood to take on the mantle of those who ran an Empire upon which the sun never set, will have to come up with an answer to bamboozle the Paddies.

We may be already seeing the first fruits of their labour.

“Well placed sources” and “veteran journalists” will start to mention the unmentionable. Books will be written. Reference has already been made in the last few days to Adams’ family.

I believe that I have already articulated the notion that the state knew years ago about the Adams Family Values and probably also about the Cahill family. They would have used this information for their own ends.

But I digress. The tactic is to reveal sufficient for the masses to be a little shocked, but not a lot. Slowly but surely they become used to it.

“Of course the Army Council were all informers” says the man in the pub/golf club/church/garden centre, “everybody knows that”

Then as the Boys and Girls point out , distracted by Britain’s Got Talent and other Circuses, if not bread, the masses  will move on.

Jimmy Savile has already been replaced by Sepp as the Bogey Man.

The aim is to numb, neutralise and normalise so that nobody asks the hard questions about the state’s involvement in murders that could have been avoided. “It’s all terribly sad and it was a cock up not a conspiracy so  let’s move on.”

Sadly , for the Boys and Girls and their Mandarin Masters, a few good people will continue to ask awkward questions.

What’s Irish for eeney,meeney, miney,moe?

Readers of this blog will know that part of my case against the state is that at the time of the murders of my parents, PIRA was so thoroughly penetrated that the state not only knew who killed them but could have prevented it and had agents participating in the crimes.

Anne Cadwallader, in the opening pages of chapter eight of  her remarkable book “Lethal Allies” articulates how victims feel.

“He is a bit obsessed you know…”

Here is what  de Silva has noted , when he investigated the murder of Patrick Finucane.

The Commanding Officer of the Force Research Unit said; “You cannot report on a terrorist organisation unless you have someone at the centre of things”.

In March 1991 the Secretary of State for Defence wrote: “we cannot expect to obtain valuable intelligence from agents that are not at the heart of the target organisation or group.”

So, let’s think. In PIRA, who was at the “centre” or the “heart”?

No, surely not! That can’t be right! Gerry, Marty, Bobby, the Army Council, Northern Command, Belfast CO?

Readers might accept that there would be little point in recruiting the woman cleaning Connolly House or even one of Gerry’s bodyguards.

So, who were the agents involved in the events of 6th June 1990?

Patience, Dear Reader!

“These legacy issues”

Interviewed on BBC Panorama and shown tonight, the Chief Constable referred to “these legacy issues”

Well, I have news for him.

The murders of my parents were crimes. Crimes which his force has failed to solve. Crimes where the papers were put in a box and stored away , probably months after the bomb. The exhibits were destroyed.

My parents were real living victims of crime.

They are not a “legacy”, nor an “issue”.

I suppose I should not be surprised that , having been selected as a safe pair of hands by the state, he trots out the state’s line.

Readers, particularly those who have also lost loved ones might well think  [like I do] that George Hamilton’s attitude stinks.

The partial repayment of a debt

Today I lodged papers with the Police Ombudsman. Details will follow. Essentially, I contend that PIRA was so completely penetrated by the state in 1990 that the murders of my parents were the state’s responsibility. This the police failed to investigate. I have given details of the PIRA informers, whose names I know and I have asked the Ombudsman to examine all state files. The exercise has taken a year of my life, which I have gladly given, for my parents. Other events have given me this opportunity, which I failed to take for twenty four years. A number of people who treated me badly during that time and who gave me no support will have their own God to answer to. I thank those who have stood by me through all my travails for these years. I thank those from both communities, who, in the last twelve months have given me information and insight. The PSNI and the PPS failed to come up to the mark. Let’s see if the Ombudsman is hewn from different wood.

Child victims

In March 2012 , having unsuccessfully prosecuted a case in respect of a child who, at the time of the alleged offences was under four, I wrote a report to Roger Davison, then Regional prosecutor, PPS Lisburn.

I set out the facts of the case and voiced my concerns for similar cases, in the future. I was concerned , because of the professional advice which I had received ,about extremely young witnesses and their capacity to give evidence.

My report did not rate even an acknowledgement from the Regional Prosecutor, who went on to be involved with the Mairia Cahill case.

The public should recognise and be concerned about the quality of the criminal justice system. It would be a mistake to think that Mairia Cahill , AA and BB are exceptions.

There are no bad soldiers only bad officers

Kier Starmer made a number of criticisms of the PPS. Any prosecuting barrister could have told him of the failings if he had cared to ask. The service provided to victims has always been wanting. Frequently the defence is represented by senior and junior counsel attended by a solicitor and frequently the prosecution is in the hands of junior counsel or employed counsel attended by an unqualified clerk.

Worse still is the enormous pressure place on these clerks, who are left to be the conduit between victims, the witnesses, the court, the police, the directing officer and counsel. None of the PPS high command, mentioned by Starmer, has ever had a career prosecuting  in the Crown Court and they are rarely seen there.

The problems suffered by the three complainants are not new. The victim is less well looked after than the accused. For example in Craigavon, the PPS has no dedicated , private, room in which to consult with victims. It was taken off them without a fight.

Of course like all organisations, found out at last , the promise is for new organisational structures. I’m surprised that nobody said “we have learned lessons”.

All the reorganisation in the world will be of no avail until there is a culture change at the heart of the PPS. Less obsession with ‘stats’ and more interest in the court process would be a start. The Irish Times  today says  that the two counsel involved have reported themselves to the Bar Council. Let’s see what happens to the civil servants, responsible for delivering the service.

Meanwhile Napoleon’s dictum is as relevant as ever.

Lies and the RUC Special Branch

It is reported that Chief Supt. Nigel Grimshaw told the AGM of the Superintendents’ Association of NI that “we need to see the full implementation of strategies and policies which deal with those issues which continue to haunt us, parades , identities and in particular the past.”

He and his bosses would do the community and the past a great service by opening up the secret Special Branch files and confessing as to what is in them.

The concept that the identity or safety of paramilitary touts trumps the prosecution of those who should stand trial for the murder of innocent civilians is deeply wrong.

Of course the state could order the opening of the files or some Special Branch man, luxuriating in his Patton pension, topped up with further state work, could salve his conscience by telling the truth.

Come to think of it, there must be a few Branch men still left in the current PSNI high command, if Marty is right.