Concealment of truth about murder of Sean Brown should be a source of ‘shame’ for British state

UK government challenging ‘unprecedented’ decision by judge to establish inquiry into loyalist murder of Co Derry GAA official in 1997

The family of murdered GAA official Sean Brown, (front, left to right) daughter Clare Loughran, widow Bridie Brown, and daughter Siobhan Brown and son Sean Brown Jr. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Wire
The family of murdered GAA official Sean Brown, (front, left to right) daughter Clare Loughran, widow Bridie Brown, and daughter Siobhan Brown and son Sean Brown Jr. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Wire

The concealment of the truth about the murder of GAA official Sean Brown for almost 30 years should be a source of “profound shame and embarrassment” for the British state, a court has been told.

Des Fahy KC, for the Brown family, described Mr Brown’s 1997 murder, which has been linked to several state agents, as an “indelible stain” on the body politic of the UK.

He was responding to a UK government attempt to overturn the decision of a High Court judge last year to order a public inquiry into the murder. Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn’s challenge against the order was heard in the Court of Appeal in Belfast on Thursday.

Mr Brown (61), the chairman of Bellaghy Wolfe Tones GAA club in Co Derry, was ambushed, kidnapped and murdered by loyalist paramilitaries as he locked the gates of the club in May 1997. No one has ever been convicted of his killing.

READ MORE

Tony McGleenan KC, for Mr Benn, argued that Mr Justice Humphreys was wrong in law to compel the government to set up a public inquiry. However, Mr Fahy said the judge’s decision was “unimpeachable”, with an inquiry the only legal means left to uncover the facts around the murder.

He noted that the appeal case marked the 57th occasion Mr Brown’s widow, Bridie (87), had come to a courtroom in her long campaign for justice. He said this should be “a source of profound shame and embarrassment for all of the institutions of the British state”.

“The fact that 28 years later no one has been prosecuted and convicted of this heinous murder is egregious in itself.”

Last year a coroner halted an inquest into Mr Brown’s death, expressing concern that his ability to examine it had been “compromised” by the extent of confidential state material being excluded from the proceedings on national security grounds. Preliminary inquest proceedings had already heard that in excess of 25 people had been linked by intelligence to the murder, including several state agents.

Coroner Mr Justice Kinney called on the government to establish a public inquiry into the loyalist murder.

Mr Benn decided against holding an inquiry, saying the case could instead be dealt with by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). However, aspects of the legislation underpinning the work of the ICRIR was later found to be incompatible with human rights laws in a different Court of Appeal challenge, separate from the Brown case.

Mr Brown’s widow challenged Mr Benn’s decision not to order a public inquiry and Mr Justice Humphreys found in her favour in December, ordering the government to establish one.

Mr McGleenan said that Mr Justice Humphreys “seized the discretion” that should have been held by Mr Benn and exercised it himself when he ordered an inquiry. He described the judge’s decision as unprecedented, saying: “There’s not a single example anyone will show you of a court doing that.”

Mr McGleenan said Mr Benn remained committed to making the ICRIR compliant with human rights laws, either by legislative changes or by successfully challenging the separate Court of Appeal judgment.

Noting the family’s long wait for justice, he said it was “not a comfortable position” for the government to be mounting the appeal challenge but that Mr Justice Humphreys should have adjourned Ms Brown’s case until that appeal ran its course.

Responding on behalf of the Brown family, Mr Fahy said their “concern and indignation” over the failure to uncover the truth would continue until “the circumstances of the murder and state involvement in it are exposed”.

“The killers have in all likelihood escaped accountability for their actions, but the reasons why that was, and is, still can, and must, be examined,” he said, adding that the only lawful way to do that was through a public inquiry.

The case continues. – PA