Series of public inquiries on Troubles incidents ‘not the way forward'
Campaigners outside Belfast High Court during a challenge to the Legacy Act (Brian Lawless/PA)
The body led by Sir Declan Morgan, a former lord chief justice for Northern Ireland, was set up by the former government's Legacy Act after scores of legacy inquests and other court cases relating to the Troubles were halted.
The Kingsmill massacre and the Guildford pub bombings are among cases it is currently looking at.
Mr Benn told MPs they are working to change disclosure arrangements and to make it compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
'In the end, we're not going to deal with legacy with a whole series of public inquiries,' he said.
'We're doing all this work to try and create a body which is capable of delivering justice for all, information for all, answers for all.
'That is what I am trying to do at the moment because of the incompatibilities identified.'
He was asked about his decision not to call a public inquiry into the circumstances around the murder of GAA official Sean Brown in 1997.
In May the UK Government confirmed it will seek a Supreme Court appeal over a court ruling that ordered it to hold a public inquiry into Mr Brown's murder.
Supporters of the family of GAA official Sean Brown, with widow Bridie Brown (centre), daughter Clare Loughran (left) and daughter Siobhan Brown (right) (Liam McBurney/PA)
The 61-year-old then-chairman of Wolfe Tones GAA Club in the Co Londonderry town of Bellaghy 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.
Preliminary inquest proceedings last year heard that in excess of 25 people had been linked by intelligence to the murder, including several state agents.
It was also alleged in court that surveillance of a suspect in the murder was temporarily stopped on the evening of the killing, only to resume again the following morning.
Asked about Mr Brown's case, Mr Benn told MPs: 'It's an awful, awful case.
'The murder of Sean Brown was shocking, deeply violent, and this has caused immense suffering to the family, to his widow Bridie and to the wider community, including the GAA family, because of the role that he undertook.
'But I came to the conclusion that the commission reformed would be capable of looking into it, and there's an issue of principle here in respect to the court ruling.
'Up until this moment, the courts accepted that it is for governments to decide whether public inquiries are ordered, not for the courts.
'What the courts have tended to say is, this is the test that has to be met, the way in which the government chooses to meet that test is a matter for governments to decide.
'There is a margin of appreciation that is made available.
'In this particular case, the court has decided to order a public inquiry.
'We're seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court because of that fundamental principle, which is, courts do not order public inquiries, governments do, and that is very important because of the nature of the mandatory order I am not able to do anything else other than order a public inquiry, which I made it clear that the Government is not going to do, because I believe there's another means of dealing with this case.'
Mr Benn said there are five other cases that are in the same position.
'People say the Sean Brown case is unique. All murders are unique and uniquely painful for the family, but it is not a unique case,' he said.
'This is not a unique case, and I would also say we are not going to deal with legacy by having a whole series of public inquiries.
'That is not a way forward. That is why we have to make the reform of the commission to win public confidence.
'To make it ECHR compliant is so important because then you have a mechanism that you can use to deal with all of them and all of us, the committee, the whole team, everybody needs to be concerned about justice for everyone.'
He added: 'It is open to the Brown family to go to the commission today, the commission will start work on investigating.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Is this tough US-EU trade deal a triumph for Brexit Britain? Only in leavers' most delusional fantasies
Those who misled the country over Brexit are usually quieter these days. They do not hang their heads in shame, but change the subject whenever they can. They deflect with their new war-cry that Britain must also leave the European convention on human rights. As the effects of their wicked Brexit folly worsen by the month, they rarely get a chance to whoop: 'We were right!' So their glee was unrestrained when the great US global bully gave Britain a less hard beating with a 10% tariff on its goods, compared with the EU, which was walloped with 15%. Their joy overflowed when the business and trade secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, conceded: 'I'm absolutely clear, this is a benefit of being out of the European Union, having our independent trade policy, absolutely no doubt about that.' But what else can a trade secretary, speaking through gritted teeth, actually say? In his attempts to attract foreign investment, he can hardly tell the truth about the damage done by leaving the EU. These advocates of Brexit should gloat while they can. When the French prime minister called the EU's deal with Donald Trump a 'soumission' (submission), Kwasi Kwarteng seized on the word in a piece for the Telegraph, writing: 'For the French, with their memories of capitulation to the Nazis in 1940, the word is even more associated with abject humiliation than it is in English.' Yes, that's the same Kwarteng who hurled the British economy over a cliff only three years ago. 'This trade deal is the EU's greatest humiliation since Britain voted to leave', read the headline on his column. But he would never confess that the difference between a 10% and 15% tariff with the US is minimal, since we trade twice as much with the EU as the US. It barely equates to the regular variation in exchange rates: in other words, it's 'a rounding error', the Centre for European Reform's trade expert, John Springford, told me, when compared with the hammer blow Britain gave itself with Brexit. The UK-India trade deal signed with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, last week was greeted with another Brexiter whoop from the Conservative peer Daniel Hannan. Also writing in the Telegraph, he said: 'My party, and Brexiteers more widely, should be taking credit for having done what all the clever Europhiles have spent six years telling us was impossible. Instead of moaning, we should welcome Starmer's belated understanding that world's biggest and fastest-growing markets are outside the EU.' But the Tory leader took another view: 'Keir Starmer called this 'historic.' It's not historic, we've just been shafted!' Kemi Badenoch said, dismissing the India agreement as a bad deal that would increase immigration. I don't know whether clever men like Kwarteng and Hannan are blinded by Brexit monomania or paralysed by the awful knowledge of the damage they have inflicted on their country, unable to confess an act of treachery and delusion hardly matched in British history. But as ever, facts are too inconvenient for them to deal with. Yes, the India deal is the biggest and most substantial trade deal since leaving the EU. Yes, it's a deal that would have been impossible to do from inside the union. But how big is it? It will add 0.13% to our economy. That's better than the Australia agreement, worth just 0.08%, the New Zealand deal, worth 0.03%, or the proposed US agreement, worth 0.16%, according to Department for Business and Trade analysis. But our fragile economy needs all the help it can get, so hurrah for Brexit and our new trade deals! But the gloaters ignore the context: our great Brexit losses. Here's the Office for Budget Responsibility's assessment: 'Our forecasts have assumed that the volume of UK imports and exports will both be 15% lower than if we had remained in the EU.' That 15% loss in trade 'will lead to a 4% reduction in the potential productivity of the UK economy'. In other words, as Jonty Bloom of the New World calculates, we need 50 India trade deals to make up for Brexit, because Britain does more than 40% of its trade with the EU – more if you include the European Economic Area and Switzerland. India has just 2% of our trade. Brexiters bleat that Labour is sneaking us into the EU by the back door, with deals on Horizon, the EU's research and innovation funding programme; soon, hopefully, Erasmus; and maybe a youth experience scheme. We hope for agricultural products and energy deals. But even these, say the trade experts, are still small potatoes. Major attempts to rescue Britain's 4% loss in productivity since 2020 hit the concrete walls of Boris Johnson's monumentally bad trade and cooperation agreement. Brexit zealots protest against agreements to keep a dynamic alignment with EU standards that would make trade easier. But it doesn't apply to our internal environmental standards: outside EU rules, we have let our water quality fall behind the EU. More than 85% of bathing waters in the EU are rated excellent compared with just 64% in the UK, with the gap rising every year, reports the European Movement. Public opinion has shifted rapidly: we are now a 'Bregretful' country, where only 31% still think it was right to leave and 61% say Brexit has been more of a failure than a success. Who do they blame? The Conservatives and Boris Johnson are top of the list, with 88% and 84% respectively holding them responsible. More than two-thirds (67%) blame Nigel Farage. A majority of Britons (56%) want to rejoin the EU as the grim reaper carries off old Brexiters, replacing them with young, pro-European voters. Don't expect bolder moves from the Labour government in its current frame of mind. Though defence and security draw us towards ever closer union, public opinion is not to be trusted. If people were confronted now with actual re-entry terms – paying in, free movement, joining the euro, no special deals – their answers might change. The mood might also be different if the far right continues its gains in EU countries, dividing the union's values. What might it take to throw off the economic, political and psychological darkness of Brexit? A clever – or Cleverly? – new Tory leader daring to break with the past, confessing the error of Brexit and taking us back into the EU, once and for all. It may take another generation to recover. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
Is this tough US-EU trade deal a triumph for Brexit Britain? Only in leavers' most delusional fantasies
Those who misled the country over Brexit are usually quieter these days. They do not hang their heads in shame, but change the subject whenever they can. They deflect with their new war-cry that Britain must also leave the European convention on human rights. As the effects of their wicked Brexit folly worsen by the month, they rarely get a chance to whoop: 'We were right!' So their glee was unrestrained when the great US global bully gave Britain a less hard beating with a 10% tariff on its goods, compared with the EU, which was walloped with 15%. Their joy overflowed when the business and trade secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, conceded: 'I'm absolutely clear, this is a benefit of being out of the European Union, having our independent trade policy, absolutely no doubt about that.' But what else can a trade secretary, speaking through gritted teeth, actually say? In his attempts to attract foreign investment, he can hardly tell the truth about the damage done by leaving the EU. These advocates of Brexit should gloat while they can. When the French prime minister called the EU's deal with Donald Trump a 'soumission' (submission), Kwasi Kwarteng seized on the word in a piece for the Telegraph, writing: 'For the French, with their memories of capitulation to the Nazis in 1940, the word is even more associated with abject humiliation than it is in English.' Yes, that's the same Kwarteng who hurled the British economy over a cliff only three years ago. 'This trade deal is the EU's greatest humiliation since Britain voted to leave', read the headline on his column. But he would never confess that the difference between a 10% and 15% tariff with the US is minimal, since we trade twice as much with the EU as the US. It barely equates to the regular variation in exchange rates: in other words, it's 'a rounding error', the Centre for European Reform's trade expert, John Springford, told me, when compared with the hammer blow Britain gave itself with Brexit. The UK-India trade deal signed with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, last week was greeted with another Brexiter whoop from the Conservative peer Daniel Hannan. Also writing in the Telegraph, he said: 'My party, and Brexiteers more widely, should be taking credit for having done what all the clever Europhiles have spent six years telling us was impossible. Instead of moaning, we should welcome Starmer's belated understanding that world's biggest and fastest-growing markets are outside the EU.' But the Tory leader took another view: 'Keir Starmer called this 'historic.' It's not historic, we've just been shafted!' Kemi Badenoch said, dismissing the India agreement as a bad deal that would increase immigration. I don't know whether clever men like Kwarteng and Hannan are blinded by Brexit monomania or paralysed by the awful knowledge of the damage they have inflicted on their country, unable to confess an act of treachery and delusion hardly matched in British history. But as ever, facts are too inconvenient for them to deal with. Yes, the India deal is the biggest and most substantial trade deal since leaving the EU. Yes, it's a deal that would have been impossible to do from inside the union. But how big is it? It will add 0.13% to our economy. That's better than the Australia agreement, worth just 0.08%, the New Zealand deal, worth 0.03%, or the proposed US agreement, worth 0.16%, according to Department for Business and Trade analysis. But our fragile economy needs all the help it can get, so hurrah for Brexit and our new trade deals! But the gloaters ignore the context: our great Brexit losses. Here's the Office for Budget Responsibility's assessment: 'Our forecasts have assumed that the volume of UK imports and exports will both be 15% lower than if we had remained in the EU.' That 15% loss in trade 'will lead to a 4% reduction in the potential productivity of the UK economy'. In other words, as Jonty Bloom of the New World calculates, we need 50 India trade deals to make up for Brexit, because Britain does more than 40% of its trade with the EU – more if you include the European Economic Area and Switzerland. India has just 2% of our trade. Brexiters bleat that Labour is sneaking us into the EU by the back door, with deals on Horizon, the EU's research and innovation funding programme; soon, hopefully, Erasmus; and maybe a youth experience scheme. We hope for agricultural products and energy deals. But even these, say the trade experts, are still small potatoes. Major attempts to rescue Britain's 4% loss in productivity since 2020 hit the concrete walls of Boris Johnson's monumentally bad trade and cooperation agreement. Brexit zealots protest against agreements to keep a dynamic alignment with EU standards that would make trade easier. But it doesn't apply to our internal environmental standards: outside EU rules, we have let our water quality fall behind the EU. More than 85% of bathing waters in the EU are rated excellent compared with just 64% in the UK, with the gap rising every year, reports the European Movement. Public opinion has shifted rapidly: we are now a 'Bregretful' country, where only 31% still think it was right to leave and 61% say Brexit has been more of a failure than a success. Who do they blame? The Conservatives and Boris Johnson are top of the list, with 88% and 84% respectively holding them responsible. More than two-thirds (67%) blame Nigel Farage. A majority of Britons (56%) want to rejoin the EU as the grim reaper carries off old Brexiters, replacing them with young, pro-European voters. Don't expect bolder moves from the Labour government in its current frame of mind. Though defence and security draw us towards ever closer union, public opinion is not to be trusted. If people were confronted now with actual re-entry terms – paying in, free movement, joining the euro, no special deals – their answers might change. The mood might also be different if the far right continues its gains in EU countries, dividing the union's values. What might it take to throw off the economic, political and psychological darkness of Brexit? A clever – or Cleverly? – new Tory leader daring to break with the past, confessing the error of Brexit and taking us back into the EU, once and for all. It may take another generation to recover. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Spectator
18 hours ago
- Spectator
Palestine Action shouldn't be unbanned
Yesterday, the High Court allowed Palestine Action to challenge the Home Secretary's decision to ban it. Since its proscription, under terrorism legislation, it has been an offence to be a member of the group, or to invite support for it. While it was not a final determination, the High Court hearing was revealing. Mr Justice Chamberlain's decision followed judicial consideration of a file of 'closed material' – evidence not disclosed to the claimant – and an open hearing which was reported in the press The judge ruled that Palestine Action could proceed to bring a judicial review; but only on two specific grounds: a human rights claim under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and an argument that the Home Secretary should have consulted the group before issuing the proscription order. The court rejected the claimant's remaining six grounds as not reasonably arguable and the ban on the group will remain in force in the interim. During the most recent proceedings the court was told that more than 170 people had been arrested since the ban on Palestine Action took effect, and that the police had been somewhat overzealous in their enforcement efforts. In particular, it was said that a man in Leeds had been detained for holding up a copy of an article in Private Eye that had lampooned the ban, and that others had been arrested for what was described as a seated, silent protest. The issues around freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, under the ECHR, are likely to found the main basis of Palestine Action's grounds of action when the full case is heard in the autumn. The discussion surrounding the proscription of Palestine Action is often framed through the lens of freedom of speech. Arguably, that should not be seen as the central issue. In a debate in the House of Lords last week, the security minister, Lord Hanson, explained very concisely the rationale for the proscription order against Palestine Action: 'Palestine Action has perpetrated attacks in which it has forced entry onto premises armed with weapons and smashed up property, and members of the organisation have used serious violence against responding individuals.' The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to proscribe a group if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism.' The legislation defines terrorism to include not only violence against individuals intended to influence the government or intimidate the public (or a section of the public), but also actions involving serious damage to property. Palestine Action is the first group to be proscribed based on that part of the definition. When Yvette Cooper informed Parliament of her intention to ban Palestine Action, members of the group had just broken into RAF Brize Norton in the early hours of 20 June and caused damage to aircraft – with repair costs estimated at up to £7 million. Cooper also emphasised that this was not the first time members of the group had taken direct action against targets affecting UK national security. Previous incidents attributed to the group included attacks on Thales in Glasgow, Instro Precision in Kent, and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The Glasgow attack reportedly caused significant financial damage to components essential for submarines and seriously alarmed staff who were present at the time. Cooper said that in late 2023, Palestine Action released what it called The Underground Manual. The document encouraged the formation of cells, offered practical guidance on how to carry out actions against private companies and government buildings on behalf of Palestine Action. It linked to a website featuring a map of specific targets across the UK. These activities are not just expressions of free speech and go rather further than simple public disorder. Rather, they fall much more within the realm of violent direct action. It is said that the proscription of Palestine Action could have a chilling effect on other people who wish simply to engage in peaceful protest against the war in Gaza. Whatever your views on the conflict, it is evident that people should be free to support Palestinian rights and self-determination. Yet there are ways to do this without being a member of or a supporter of a group like Palestine Action. The Home Secretary makes a reasonable point when she argues that we should not conflate its activities with reasonable pro-Palestinian advocacy. There is absolutely no need for peaceful protestors to associate themselves with a group concerned in unlawful acts involving violence. I have previously argued that, if anything, the police have been unusually lenient in policing pro-Palestine protests, allowing frequent, thinly veiled calls for the destruction of Israel – such as the now-apparently normalized chant, 'from the river to the sea.' Those who have witnessed the frequent marches in London might reasonably conclude that protesters – at least those simply calling for freedom for Palestine and an end to the war in Gaza – should have little to fear from the Metropolitan Police, provided that constables are properly briefed about the extent of the order banning Palestine Action. With Keir Starmer now expected to recognise a Palestinian state in September, tensions over the Israel–Gaza conflict will likely remain high when the case returns to court in November. Given the public evidence now available, it seems hard to argue that proscription of Palestine Action was not a legitimate response to their recent activities. Damage to national security infrastructure – such as aircraft and submarine components – is among the gravest forms of property damage imaginable, and should clearly be seen as 'serious' for the purpose of the terrorism legislation. The decision to hold a full hearing is likely to be seen as a blow to the Home Secretary. Clearly, the High Court will have to carefully consider the claimant's submissions under the ECHR. But it would be particularly unfortunate if it reached the view that human rights laws could allow those who engage in, or support, violent and destructive activity to act with impunity.
