Strong evidence that collusive acts were committed

Murder of Pat Finucane: Mr Patrick Finucane (39), a married father of three and practising solicitor, was shot dead in front…

Murder of Pat Finucane: Mr Patrick Finucane (39), a married father of three and practising solicitor, was shot dead in front of his family as they sat down for an evening meal at their north Belfast home on February 12th, 1989.

The solicitor acted frequently for those alleged to be members of the IRA, and "there can be little doubt that it was his role as solicitor that led to his murder," Judge Cory found.

He cited a comment by the then Home Office Minister, Mr Douglas Hogg, some weeks prior to the murder that "some lawyers are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA."

Statements were also made by an ex-Chief Constable of the RUC "belittling the integrity" of Mr Finucane. Yet, Judge Cory pointed out, there was nothing in the RUC files which indicated Mr Finucane was a member of the IRA, or any other paramilitary group.

READ MORE

In a 115-page report, of which at least nine pages had been blanked out, the judge documented the operations of the RUC's Special Branch (SB) unit and the British Army's Force Research Unit (FRU) at the time of the murder.

He noted that the late Mr Brian Nelson, a UDA agent for the FRU, claimed in a statement in 1990 to have advised his handlers that Mr Finucane was being targeted by loyalist paramilitaries. If this was true "that, in itself, would be evidence of collusion", the judge stated.

He continued: "It was the duty of Special Branch to protect all individuals, whatever their religious or political affiliation. In this it failed. The documents indicate that in some instances Special Branch failed to take any steps to prevent actual or planned attacks on persons targeted by Loyalist terrorist groups.

"Within FRU, there also existed attitudes which led to breaches of policies governing agent handling. For example, FRU appeared to countenance the commission of crimes by its agents, perhaps perceiving this to be a necessary evil in the fight against terrorism."

Both the SB and the FRU were said to have impeded formal inquiries into the murder undertaken by Sir John Stevens.

"Perhaps the most significant obstacle placed in the path of the Stevens team was the concealment of Nelson's 'intelligence dump'."

Intelligence material from the double agent was not turned over to the inquiry team until some months after Nelson had been arrested and interrogated.

"I have reviewed a document which would appear to lend strong support to the allegation that RUC SB and FRU consciously set out to withhold pertinent information from the Stevens Inquiries," Judge Cory added, pointing out that an "unfortunate attitude" appeared to exist in both agencies. "Namely, that they were not bound by the law and were above and beyond its reach."

Furthermore, he said, "the documents and statements I have referred to in this review have a cumulative effect. Considered together, they clearly indicate to me that there is strong evidence that collusive acts were committed by the Army (FRU), the RUC SB and the Security Service. I am satisfied that there is a need for a public inquiry."

Calling for this inquiry to begin "as quickly as possible", he said: "If criminal prosecutions are to proceed, the practical effect might be to delay the public inquiry for at least two years. This may be one of the rare situations where a public inquiry will be of greater benefit to a community that prosecutions.

"If, for example, the person to be prosecuted is a member of the military then military discipline resulting in loss of rank and benefits may be a far greater punishment and have a far greater deterrent effect than a prosecution."