Zur deutschsprachigen Sektion / To German Language Section
New 'Victims Minister' says No to McBride Family Meeting
Tuesday, 28 April, 2003
Friday, 13 June, 2003
Monday, 16 June, 2003
Monday-Wednesday, 16-18 June, 2003
Wednesday, 18 June, 2003
Mother of murder victim puts questions to PM Blair
From Belfast to Basra
By Pat Finucane Centre, Derry
The mother of murdered north Belfast teenager Peter McBride has put a number of questions to PM Tony Blair regarding the fate of the two soldiers convicted of murdering her son. In the letter Jean McBride has challenged the Prime Minister to clarify the following:
The most senior officer in the British Army, General Mike Jackson, sat on the Army Board that ruled that the retention in the army of the soldiers who shot my son was "desirable". Is the Prime Minister concerned that this will send a clear message to British soldiers in Iraq that the murder of unarmed civilians at checkpoints is acceptable?
Commenting on the letter Jean McBride said today,
"When the Ministry of Defence tried to justify allowing the two soldiers who murdered Peter to remain on they promised us that there was no danger of repetition and that neither would be posted here again. If the situation on the New Lodge was so tense in 1992 that murder could be excused what is it like in Basra today? God help the civilian population of Basra. Their so-called ‘liberators’ include convicted murderers of children."
Court of Appeal rules in favour of Jean McBride
By Pat Finucane Centre, Derry
The Court of Appeal in Belfast today ruled in favour of Jean McBride, mother of murdered Belfast teenager Peter McBride, in her appeal against an earlier judicial review ruling accepting the British Army’s reasons for retaining the two soldier’s convicted of the murder of her son.
In a split decision, the court ruled today that the reasons given by the army board for the retention of Scots Guards Mark Wright and James Fisher did not constitute the “exceptional reasons” required under Queen’s regulations regarding the retention of soldiers who had received custodial sentences. The Court of Appeal stated that, while it does not have the authority to order the Ministry of Defence to accept its ruling, it expected the Ministry of Defence to take full note of it.
A PFC spokesperson said, “It is now up to the Ministry of Defence and the entire British government to accept yet another ruling by a Belfast court in favour of Jean McBride. Once again it has been found that the decision by the British army to retain two convicted murderers was and is totally unjustified, and this must be rectified straight away. Wright and Fisher must be discharged from the British army immediately.”
Members of the McBride family will soon travel to London to personally deliver this latest judgement to No10 Downing Street.
The Pat Finucane Centre is urging everyone who supports the McBride family in their campaign to contact Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Ministry of Defence to demand that they accept this court ruling and discharge the two convicted murderers from the British army immediately.
Email, fax and phone messages should be sent to:
PM Tony Blair: remote-printer.HonTonyBlair@441718399044.iddd.tpc.int Tel Downing St at (+44) 207 9304433 Fax (+44) 207 925 0918 Contact the Armed Forces Minister at public@ministers.mod.uk Contact the Ministry of Defence at webmaster@army.mod.ukFull details on this case, including the British army's excuses for retaining the two Scots Guards, can be accessed at www.serve.com/pfc
Human Rights Groups Welcome McBride Court Ruling
By Amnesty International
Five human rights organisations have today welcomed the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal's judgment in respect of the murder of Peter McBride in 1992. The McBride family have for years been challenging the decision by the army to continue to employ Guardsmen Fisher and Wright even though they had been convicted of Mr. McBride's murder. The Court of Appeal today found that the reasons given by the army for the retention of Fisher and Wright did not amount to the "exceptional reasons" required under Queen's regulations dealing with soldiers convicted of criminal offences. As a result of this judgment the Army Board will have to reconsider the case yet again.
A spokesperson for Amnesty International, British Irish Rights Watch, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Pat Finucane Centre and Liberty said:-
"It is clear that in deciding not to discharge Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, the army has thus far failed to recognise the gravity of the human rights violation which they committed. The decision to "exceptionally" retain the two soldiers in the armed forces has fostered impunity and undermined effective redress for the victim's family."
For further information contact:
Amnesty International Press Office: 0207 413 5566 British Irish Rights Watch: 0208 772 9161 Committee on the Administration of Justice: 028 90 961122 Pat Finucane Centre: 07989 323418 Liberty Press Office: 0207 378 3656Copyright © Amnesty International 2003
Peter McBride case Judgement
By Pat Finucane Centre, Derry
Following the decision by an Army Board of the British Army to retain two soldiers convicted of the 1992 murder of Belfast teenager Peter McBride the family appealed this ruling through the courts. On Friday the Court of Appeal in Belfast, by a majority of two to one decided,
"That taken together, the reasons expressed by the Army Board for the retention in Army service of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in its determination of 21 November 2001 do not amount to exceptional reasons."
Under internal army guidelines, the Queen's Regulations, soldiers who receive a custodial sentence in a civilian court must be dismissed unless there are 'exceptional reasons'. Below we are enclosing the relevant section of the lead judgement from Justice Mc Collum. The 'Board' referred to at the beginning is the Army Board. In this section the judge outlines the British Army case and then proceeds to argue as to why this case is fundamentally flawed. The full Mc Collum judgement is available on the pfc website tomorrow
[13]…
The Board decided in the light of further discussion after the hearing and at subsequent meetings that the following factors taken together did amount to exceptional reasons:
the trial judge’s findings, in particular that the Guardsmen:
(1) had sufficient time to decide whether or not to fire and, although both were aware that they had no justification for doing so, both discharged aimed shots at Mr McBride knowing he posed no threat to them;
(2) [were not] in any panic situation which called for split second reaction;
(3) lied about critical elements of their version of events ... and deliberately chose to put forward a version which they both knew to be untrue;
all the matters raised by and on behalf of Mrs McBride and others in the representations as to why the Guardsmen should not be allowed to remain in the Army. The Board concluded that, taken together, the reasons listed in paragraph 18 made the Guardsmen’s retention desirable.
The Board therefore rejected the applications to discharge 24776043 Guardsmen Fisher and 25001649 Guardsman Wright M D and directed that they should be permitted to continue their Army service. In all the circumstances the Board concluded that it would be inappropriate for the Guardsmen to serve in Northern Ireland again without the Board’s leave, and further directed accordingly.”
[14] The arbitrary nature of 9.404(d) is to be noted. The soldier may only be retained in the circumstances set out.
[15] The word “exceptional” in connection with the mitigating effect of relevant factors has been judicially considered and discussed in a number of cases.
[16] In Regina v Okinikan (CA) 1993 1 WLR at 176 Lord Taylor said in relation to the expression “‘exceptional circumstances” under Section 5(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991:
“This court cannot lay down a definition of exceptional circumstances. They will inevitably depend on the facts of each individual case. However taken on their own or in combination good character, youth and an early plea are not exceptional circumstances justifying a suspended sentence. They are common features of many cases.
[17] In the case of R v Kelly 1999 2 CAR(S) 176 Lord Bingham said:
“We must construe ‘exceptional’ as an ordinary familiar English adjective and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception which is out of the ordinary course or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique or precedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.”
[18] That the arbitrary nature of paragraph 9.404(d) has been recognised by the military authorities can be illustrated by the fact that in the period from 1989/90 to 1999/00 2002 officers and men were discharged under QR9.404 while a total of 28 were retained. These figures are based on the revised numbers supplied to the Army Board.
[19] The percentage retained therefore was under 1.4% or one case in 72.
[20] Had it been intended simply to ameliorate the arbitrary effect of 9.404(d) then retention could have been permitted where “there are circumstances (or reasons) that make retention of a soldier desirable”. Effectively the use of the word “exceptional” means that reasons which are commonly or frequently to be found in cases of the nature of that under consideration or in general cases are insufficient to justify retention. It must also be noted that desirability of retention is not sufficient in itself. Some significance might also be attached to the use of the plural i.e. “exceptional reasons”.
[21] We do not know the facts or circumstances of the cases of the 2005 discharged soldiers, but it would seem extraordinary if the matters relied upon in this case were not replicated in a great number, if not the vast majority of them, with the exception of the delay in dealing with the matter.
[22] Bearing in mind the nature of judicial review, the Court will not interfere with the decision of the Army Board, if, in the circumstances of the case considered relevant by the Army Board, there are to be found reasons for retention of the soldiers which can be categorised as exceptional.
[23] The two questions to be considered by the court on this issue are therefore, (i) is any of the matters enumerated by the Board capable in itself of amounting to “exceptional reasons”? and (ii) may all or any number of them taken in combination amount to exceptional reasons?
[24] It must also be borne in mind that the reasons for retention would have to carry real weight in the context of the actual case under review; the more serious the offence the more cogent should be the reasons for retention.
[25] In this case none of the usually encountered motives of criminal actions is proved to be attributable to the soldiers, for example, individual malice, greed or personal advantage. However, the use of excessive force resulting in death, is by no means a unique event arising from the activities of security forces. Where death is caused by the use of excessive force by servants of the State, it should be a cause of great public concern. Such events diminish confidence in the maintenance of law and order and endanger the peace of the community if not treated with proper regard by the organs of state.
[26] The vast majority of soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland have acted with discipline and restraint often under considerable and deliberate provocation and under constant threat from persons difficult to identify and distinguish from law-abiding citizens. It is no compliment to them if those who have not acted with the same degree of self-control are not treated as lawbreakers, however understanding and sympathetic one might be to the dangers and difficulties of service in Northern Ireland. The Army Board did not regard the fact of engagement in active service in Northern Ireland as being capable in itself of amounting to “exceptional reasons."
[27] If we consider the circumstances of the offence to discover whether it may be said that there were any exceptional circumstances which might provide a reason for retention of the soldiers, it appears that as against other cases of excessive force resulting in death, there is no exceptional feature which would reflect to the credit of the two soldiers involved in this case.
[28] The shooting took place in daylight, there was no confrontation and no confusion at the scene, there was no menacing crowd or mob. The lives of the soldiers were not under any risk and the judge trial rejected the proposition that they believed that there was any immediate risk to them. Nothing had occurred to justify the use of a lethal weapon.
[29] The deceased had walked along the street to encounter Lance Sergeant Swift and had correctly supplied his name and address. Apart from the alleged removal of the latter’s earpiece he had committed no unlawful act.
[30] The circumstances of the shooting were not therefore such as to make the situation exceptional in a way that would be favourable to the soldiers in comparison to other cases in Northern Ireland in which a soldier might be liable to use excessive force to the extent to killing a civilian.
[31] In considering the circumstances considered relevant by the Board as together amounting to exceptional reasons, I would comment as follows:
(a) There is no evidence that 7 months or 10 months’ service, or the ages of the soldiers or the length of time they had spent in Northern Ireland could be regarded as exceptional circumstances. These factors must apply to very many soldiers serving in Northern Ireland.
(b) The situation faced by the soldiers was not in any way exceptional in the Northern Ireland context and indeed could be regarded as far more favourable to restraint and self-control than other situations that have often been encountered by soldiers in Northern Ireland.
(c) There was no evidence that the training of these soldiers was exceptionally deficient in any regard and indeed in the circumstances of this particular case, it is difficult to see how any special training would have been necessary to discourage the soldiers from opening fire.
(d) The concern and regret expressed by the soldiers falls far short of true remorse, and certainly does not amount to an expression of exceptionally contrite or remorseful feelings. Moreover, if expression of remorse were to provide an exceptional reason, few soldiers sentenced to imprisonment would fail to express them.
(e) One would expect that no previous criminal record would be the norm for soldiers and not the exception.
(f) It can scarcely be the norm that soldiers are likely to repeat their offence and it is not exceptional that they should give every indication that they would not repeat it. In any case since neither admits the criminality of his actions, and since the only explanation of what they did was that it was a reaction to a sudden and unexpected situation, I find it difficult to understand what evidence could have existed to convince the Board that there was absolutely no danger of repetition. It could not be foreseen how the soldiers would react in another sudden and unexpected situation, especially if they thought it was not wrong to open fire in similar situations. A soldier who opens fire without justification could not only imperil public order but also military operations.
(g) Presumably every soldier who does not wish to be discharged following a custodial sentence, has a considerable degree of loyalty towards the Army, certainly enough to wish to be retained. In this case it appears that every consideration was shown by Army authorities to the soldiers and it can hardly be evidence of an exceptional reason for retention that the soldiers retain their loyalty to the force.
[32] Moreover it is relevant that their continued satisfactory service could not have been undertaken if the question of discharge had been dealt with in accordance with Regulation 9.404.L (supra) which provides for an immediate decision on the authorisation of discharge. It is to be noted that in the case of a Court Martial confirmation of finding and sentence precedes appeal, so it is obviously not the policy of 9.404(1) that the outcome of an appeal should be awaited.
[33] As stated in the penultimate sentence of paragraph g it is no doubt highly exceptional for a soldier to resume service after serving a sentence of imprisonment. In 98.6% of cases he would already have been discharged in accordance with the procedure required by 9.404(1).
[34] Were the issue between Fisher and Wright and the Army, therefore, they would be in a strong position to argue that the army’s failure to apply 9.404(1), and their subsequent satisfactory service had created exceptional reasons making their retention desirable, giving rise to a legitimate expectation on their part that they would be permitted to remain in army service and that in justice they should be allowed to do so.
[35] However we are dealing with this case as a matter of public law considering the effect of the army’s decision on the public generally. In that context the army’s own failure to follow Queen’s Regulations cannot provide a successful justification for a decision which, while satisfactory to the army and to Fisher and Wright is a matter of review on behalf of the public.
[36] It may be significant that their commanding officer, rather than submitting the case with valid and explicit reasons for their retention, asked for a postponement of consideration of their discharge, contrary to Q.R. 9.404.L, and that no such reasons appear to have been provided.
[37] The Board was entitled to assess the cumulative value of the factors which it took into account and it is appropriate to consider whether all the factors considered might together amount to exceptional reasons.
[38] It appears to me that all the factors relied upon would usually be present in any case in which a soldier was considered for retention following a similar incident in Northern Ireland. If any were absent it would be very difficult to make out a case that it was desirable that the soldier should be retained. I am of the view also that it is likely that they are common features of many cases in which soldiers have been sentenced to imprisonment and would be likely to have existed in many of the cases of the 2005 soldiers discharged between 1990 and 2000.
[39] Therefore, neither individually nor cumulatively, can the reasons acted upon by the Army Board amount to exceptional reasons in the context of the offence for which the soldiers were imprisoned.
[40] In view of that conclusion it is unnecessary to consider the question of “Wednesbury unreasonableness”.
[41] However, quite apart from the issue of what may constitute exceptional reasons, I find it difficult to comprehend the view of the Army Board that it is desirable to retain Fisher and Wright in army service.
[42] Since a sentence of imprisonment almost invariably results in discharge it is not easy to discern any feature in this case which explain the obvious sympathy and concern which all superior officers concerned have displayed for the situation of Fisher and Wright.
[43] The murder of an innocent fellow citizen should rank as a crime of the greatest magnitude, and one would expect that soldiers who have misused the lethal weaponry with which they are equipped in order to take away a life without justification should be regarded as quite unfitted for further army service.
[44] There may be considerations of morale and discipline which make discharge of the soldiers undesirable but if so one would have expected them to have been aired at the hearing of the Army Board or openly expressed in the ruling.
[45] The question of remedy is considerably complicated by the fact that there are essentially, three interests involved, that represented by Mrs McBride, that of the army and that of Fisher and Wright.
[46] The second and third are in harmony at present, but if an order of the court has the effect of requiring the army to discharge Fisher and Wright then a different and difficult situation would arise.
[47] Fisher and Wright have a substantial argument that the army’s tardiness in determining the question of their discharge has materially altered their situation and has created exceptional reasons for their retention.
[48] Even if Mrs McBride has established that the decision to retain is unsustainable on the basis upon which it was made Fisher and Wright may well be in a position to maintain that their retention is justified by the circumstances which have arisen consequent on the failure by the army to observe the requirement of 9.404(1).
[49] In my view Mrs McBride and the interest she represents will not be materially affected by the remedy itself; it should therefore be sufficient to satisfy her and that section of the public that is concerned that a declaration should be made vindicating the objection to the army’s decision.
[50] The circumstances of the appellant are entirely removed from those referred to by Lord Brightman in Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans (1982) 1 WLR 115 at 1172:
“My Lords I must address myself later to the question of remedy. All that I would say at this moment is that it would, to my mind, be regrettable if a litigant who establishes that he has been legally wronged, and particularly in so important a matter as a pursuit of his chosen profession, has to be sent away from a court of justice empty handed save for an order for the recoupment of the expense to which he has been put in establishing a barren victory.”
[51] In this case the wrong done to the appellant by the legal error of the Army Board, is essentially an injury to her feelings. It appears to me that a declaration in the appropriate form will serve to compensate for that injury. It is not apparent that any section of the public will suffer detriment if the Army Board’s decision should stand.
[52] Decisions on what is best for the Army and its soldiers are best left to the Army and it would be an unwise usurpation of power if the Court were, at the behest of a person outside the Army not materially affected by the decision, to intervene by mandamus to impose a course of action on Army authorities.
[53] In the circumstances of the case certiorari would merely prolong the agony of all concerned, since it would cause a reopening of the Army Board’s consideration of the case when the situation of Fisher and Wright is markedly different from it was when the decision should originally have been made.
[54] If failure to comply with Queen’s Regulations were to visit a material injustice on any person then the Courts could intervene to provide a remedy for that person, and counsel for the respondent does not challenge the principle that certiorari does lie. However, in this case it appears to me that the court in its discretion should refrain from making an order of certiorari.
[55] A declaration does not impose upon the Army authorities any legal compulsion to take any further action in relation to the retention or discharge of Fisher and Wright.
[56] I would therefore allow the appeal to the extent of ordering a declaration in the following terms:
“That taken together, the reasons expressed by the Army Board for the retention in Army service of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in its determination of 21 November 2001 do not amount to exceptional reasons."
Monday-Wednesday, 16-18 June, 2003
New 'Victims Minister' row is latest twist in McBride case
By RM Distribution
In another twist in the case of Peter McBride, nationalists and republicans have warned the British government that the politician named as a new local minister in the North of Ireland this week should not be given the victims portfolio.
John Spellar was named to replace Minister Des Browne ar the British government's Northern Ireland Office within hours of the Court of Appeal ruling on the McBride killing last week.
Peter McBride was unarmed and only 18 years old when he was stopped and searched by a unit of the Scots Guards regiment of the British Army on September 4, 1992. He had been beaten by members of the Scots Guards only a few days earlier, and so naturally felt threatened when he was stopped by the same group again.
After being questioned and providing his details, McBride walked away from the soldiers. As he left, three members of the British army unit began to chase him and he broke into a run to escape what he must have assumed was another beating.
Two of the soldiers then opened fire and Peter was shot twice in the back from a range of 70 yards. He fell into the open door of a house on the street and, still terrified, he found the strength to crawl though the house to the back yard.
Several neighbours tried to tend to him as he lay mortally wounded, but tragically, Peter bled to death from his injuries before he could be taken to hospital.
Two Scots Guardsmen, Mark Wright and James Fisher, were charged with his murder the next day and later convicted, but they served only six years of a life sentence before being given early release in 1998 "due to exceptional circumstances."
After they were freed they were allowed to rejoin their regiment as if nothing had happened.
Since then, the family of Peter McBride has fought furiously to have the two soldiers dismissed from the army, mounting several successful legal challenges in the process.
Now the Court of Appeal has also vindicated the family's position, ruling that there were "no exceptional circumstances" that allowed the army to retain Wright and Fisher as serving soldiers.
Three presiding judges decided by 2-1, that the British army was wrong not to dismiss the two soldiers, but stopped short of ordering the army to throw them out. Instead, the court issued a legal declaration, stating that the reasons adopted by the British Army Board were not so exceptional as to permit the retention of the two soldiers.
John Spellar was one of the people involved in the decision to allow both Wright and Fisher to remain in the army in 1995. He was a member of the British Army Board which voted to retain the two soldiers in spite of their conviction.
Jean McBride says she is astonished that he will now replace Browne.
"I cannot believe that this man is being sent here, let alone the possibility that he could be the victims minister," she said angrilly, "This was one of the men who allowed my son's killers to stay in the army."
Reacting to the news of Spellar's appointment, Gerry Adams stated that both Spellar and the British government "have been given an opportunity to undo some of the immense hurt they have inflicted on the McBride family."
"Mr. Spellar's specific brief within the British team at the NIO is obviously a matter for Paul Murphy," said the Sinn Fein President, "There is a particular onus on the British secretary of State to bear in mind the controversy now surrounding Mr. Spellar and the British government's attitude to the McBride case."
"Victims, equality, and human rights are key issues, and the British government's appalling track record on these matters will not be helped if the wrong decisions are taken now."
Paul O'Connor, from the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry, which campaigns on behalf of the McBride family, also called for Mr. Spellar's name to be "withdrawn from the hat."
The British army is under increasing pressure to dismiss two soldiers after the Court of Appeal determined that the army should have expelled the pair.
Summarising the judgement, Lord Chief Justice Carswell said the issue was whether the decision to retain the pair had been a valid application of "Queen's Regulations" - the rules governing the actions of the British army.
One of the regulations states that a soldier should be discharged if he is sentenced to jail, but a proviso exists whereby they can be retained if the army decides there are "exceptional circumstances" - as the British army board ruled in November 2000. That decision was later upheld at a Judicial Review taken by the McBride family to challenge the army's ruling.
In 1997, Wright and Fisher lost an appeal to be freed early from prison. At that time they argued that they had already been in prison for five years - two longer than Paratrooper Lee Clegg and Private Ian Thain, who were both convicted after controversial shootings while on duty in Belfast, but released within three years.
This week, judge McCollum told the court, "Since a sentence of imprisonment almost invariably results in discharge, it is not easy to discern any feature in this case which explains the obvious sympathy and concern which all superior officers involved have displayed for the situation of Wright and Fisher."
"The murder of an innocent fellow citizen should rank as a crime of the greatest magnitude, and one would expect that soldiers who have misused the lethal weaponry with which they are equipped in order to take away a life without justification, should be regarded as quite unfit for further army service."
Speaking outside the courtroom this week, Peter McBride's mother, Jean, said she was "absolutely delighted" by the Court of Appeal ruling.
"Two senior judges have said more or less that it is illegal for these soldiers to still be in the army," she said , "now I am calling on governments everywhere, the British Ministry of Defence, and everyone else, to insist that these men be removed from the army right away."
She feels that Tony Blair cannot ignore the Appeal court ruling handed down this week, and that urgent steps should now be taken to dismiss her son's killers.
"In any other civilized country my son's killers would never have been allowed back into an army," she said, "They gave us assurances that these two would never be put in a situation where they could kill again."
"Then they handed them their guns and sent them off to Iraq."
Campaigners for the McBride family have examined other cases in which soldiers were dismissed from the army after being jailed for criminal activities less serious than murder, such as drug offences.
Between 1990 and 2000, a total of 2002 soldiers were dismissed from the British army after receiving custodial sentences. To date, these four soldiers are the only ones convicted in connection with killings in the Six Counties, and all four have been allowed to return to their regiments upon their release from jail.
Spellar No to McBride Family Meeting
McBride family call for no to Spellar
By Pat Finucane Centre, Derry
Minister refuses to meet family/ Shambles at press conference
Following today’s press conference with the new NIO Minister John Spellar MP, Jean McBride, mother of murdered teenager Peter McBride, issued the following statement,
“As Minister of State for the Armed Forces John Spellar sat on the Army Board which decided to allow the two soldiers who murdered my son to remain in the British Army. The Court of Appeal has now found that the Board justified the retention of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher in circumstances which were illegal.
Yesterday, at my request, the Pat Finucane Centre phoned and faxed John Spellar’s office to request an urgent meeting following his appointment as Minister with responsibility for Criminal Justice, Human Rights and Equality. At a press conference today Mr Spellar refused my request for a meeting. He has instead stated that a meeting may be possible with the Secretary of State and the Victims Minister. I am tired of simply being portrayed as a victim. My human rights were violated. By John Spellar. I did not request and I do not want to meet with any other minister. I have heard enough of the guff, blather and excuses from various ministers.
John Spellar was directly responsible for violating the human rights of my family, he showed scant regard for the criminal justice system which had found the two men guilty of murder and he reinforced the view that there is no equality of treatment for those who have suffered loss due to the actions of British soldiers.
Until and unless John Spellar agrees to a meeting I cannot believe that the broader community could co-operate in any way with his office.
Both Mark Durkan and Gerry Adams have stated that he is totally unfit to take ministerial responsibility for Criminal Justice, Human Rights and Equality. If he wants to prove that he is fit to hold this office the least he can do is meet with me.”
Shambles at Press Conference/PFC
John Spellar held his first press conference today to discuss issues connected to criminal justice. Before the briefing got underway NIO officials asked journalists to concentrate on criminal justice and limit their questions on Peter McBride to one single question at the end. This request went down badly. When the time came for questions there was a deafening silence from the assembled press corp. As the ministerial team then began to pack up there was a barrage of questions regarding Spellars’ role on the Army Board. This is when Jean McBride learnt that he was refusing to meet her.
For detailed background see www.serve.com/pfc
Contact 07989 323418 for more information
Urgent Action Appeal - Say no to John Spellar
Minister for Criminal Justice, Human Rights and Equality John Spellar MP says no to Jean McBride
By Pat Finucane Centre, Derry
As Minister for the Armed Forces John Spellar MP sat on an Army Board which voted to retain in the British Army the two soldiers convicted of the murder of Peter McBride. On Friday June 13 the Court of Appeal ruled that this decision was illegal.
Spellar has now been appointed to the NIO, where his portfolio includes Criminal Justice, Human Rights and Equality.
At his first press conference he announced that he would not meet with Jean McBride.
According to Mrs McBride: “John Spellar was directly responsible for violating the human rights of my family. He showed scant regard for the criminal justice system that found the two men guilty of murder. John Spellar reinforced the view that there is no equality of treatment for those who have suffered loss due to the actions of British soldiers.”
The Pat Finucane Centre is calling on all those with an interest in human rights, equality and a fair and just criminal justice system to support Jean McBride and to make clear to John Spellar that there can be ‘no business as normal’ until he can prove that he too has a genuine interest in human rights and justice, including the human rights of the family of a murdered teenager.
Until John Spellar agrees to meet Jean McBride, no one should agree to meet him. The only communication with him should be to express support for Peter McBride’s family and anger at the continued employment of Scots Guards Mark Wright and James Fisher.
To express your support for Jean McBride,
Contact John Spellar MP at:
Tel: (0044) 28 9052 0700 Fax: (0044) 28 9052 8202 email CBJmpomb@nio.x.gsi.gov.ukFor detailed background see www.serve.com/pfc