John Humphrys asks: should the crimes committed during the Troubles remain in the past?
When and how should the crimes committed during periods of intense political conflict be put behind us? That’s a question still facing the people of Northern Ireland fifteen years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. One of the province’s most senior lawyers has proposed an answer. Now.
Is he right?
To most people outside Northern Ireland, including many in the rest of the United Kingdom, the Troubles that caused such carnage, misery and destruction were successfully resolved by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 and the setting up of a power-sharing government. Images of the old enemies Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party and Michael McGuinness of Sinn Fein, smiling and laughing together as the First and Deputy First Ministers of the government, seemed to confirm it. I started reporting from Northern Ireland in 1970 and if anyone had told me at the time that the two might ever have even shaken hands with each other I’d have told them they were deluded. But within Northern Ireland the peace has never been an easy one. Many on each side continue to believe the other has got the better of the deal and there are still many scores to settle, not least bringing to justice those who committed the worst offences.
In the last fifteen years there have been many prosecutions, inquests and public inquiries. But now the Attorney General of Northern Ireland, John Larkin, says he believes such legal activism, including prosecutions concerning deaths associated with the Troubles in the period before 1998, should be brought to an end. He has put this proposal to Richard Haas, an American diplomat who has been appointed to review how Northern Ireland should deal with its past – an appointment that is itself an indication that all is not as smooth in Northern Ireland as the rest of the world may think.
Mr Larkin’s idea is that instead of conducting prosecutions, inquests and legal inquiries, the government should make available all relevant papers relating to specific incidents in the past to victims of them and their relatives, and to historians. He said: “We need to bring to an end the prospect of inquests with respect to Troubles-related deaths. No more inquests and no more prosecutions with respect to Troubles-related deaths. Going hand-in-hand with that would be a commitment to developing ways in which access to state records can be facilitated consistently with the safety of individuals.”
Mr Larkin denies that this amounts to an amnesty since those already serving sentences for crimes committed would continue to do so. But his idea has aroused strong opposition on both sides of the sectarian divide.
Alban Maginness, who represents a north Belfast constituency on the Northern Ireland Assembly for the nationalist SDLP party, and who is himself a lawyer, said: “For Mr Larkin to say that this proposal does not constitute an amnesty is wrong … this would amount to a blanket amnesty and the SDLP do not believe that this would be acceptable.”
For the loyalist Democratic Unionist Party, Jeffrey Donaldson MP said: “I know that my party leader and first minister [Peter Robinson], as with all of our party, would strongly object to the notion of an amnesty.”
Both sides still hope for prosecutions concerning what they regard as the greatest atrocities. For nationalists there is a still a strong wish for prosecutions of British Army paratroopers responsible for the death of thirteen unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday in 1972. And unionists want the IRA commanders who ordered the murder and subsequent disappearance of many victims to be brought to justice.
Mr Larkin’s proposal comes at a time when new evidence of what went on is emerging. The BBC’s Panorama programme this week reveals that in 1972 there was an undercover unit in the British Army, called the Military Action Force, which operated in nationalist areas and, on the admission of soldiers who had worked in it, shot at unarmed civilians they believed to be IRA terrorists. The soldiers justified this action on the grounds that they believed many lives had been saved as a consequence, but the revelation will certainly lead many nationalists to argue that those responsible for the unit (which lasted eighteen months) should be prosecuted.
In the House of Commons on Wednesday, the Prime Minister distanced himself from Mr Larkin’s proposal without actually ruling it out. Mr Cameron said: “The words of the Northern Ireland attorney general are very much his own words and not made at the behest of anybody else. The government have no plans to legislate for an amnesty for crimes that were committed during the Troubles.”
However, David Davis MP, the Tory former shadow home secretary, said: “For Northern Ireland, the path to lasting peace lies in looking to the future, not raking up the past.”
For many victims of crimes committed during the Troubles, the justice system may seem the only way to bring closure on their grief. But the chances of its being able to do so recede fast with time, as witnesses and evidence become harder to assemble. This pragmatic fact is one of the reasons for Mr Larkin to make his proposal. Supporters of it advocate it too on the grounds that it is necessary for reconciliation at a time when tensions have been rising. During the marching season last summer, violent clashes between the two communities were reminiscent of an era many thought had passed. And in the last week the shooting in the legs of a fifteen-year-old boy had all the hallmarks of paramilitary activity.
So supporters of Mr Larkin’s idea argue that the growing revival of tensions requires it. The risk is, though, that as with everything else in Northern Ireland, simply the floating of a controversial idea could have the opposite effect and incite yet more trouble.
What’s your view?
- Do you think there should be an end to the prosecution of Troubles-related crimes?
- Do you think this amounts to an amnesty or not?
- Do you think Panorama’s revelations about an army unit that shot unarmed civilians should lead to prosecutions or not?
- And how confident are you that the Troubles are indeed over?
