logo
Will of man believed to be Stakeknife will not be made public, High Court rules

Will of man believed to be Stakeknife will not be made public, High Court rules

Glasgow Times2 days ago
Freddie Scappaticci, who changed his name to Frank Cowley in 2020, was believed to be Britain's top agent inside the IRA.
Scappaticci, from west Belfast, had always denied the claims before his death aged 77 in 2023.
In a ruling on Monday, Sir Julian Flaux ordered that Scappaticci's will should be sealed for 70 years, meaning that its contents will not be made public.
The judge said that this is the first time, except for members of the royal family, where a court has ordered that a will not be made open to public inspection in the way the document would usually be.
He said: 'There is nothing in the will, which is in fairly standard form, which could conceivably be of interest to the public or the media.'
A hearing to decide whether the will should be sealed was held on July 21 and was closed to the public and the media.
Barristers for the Attorney General, who represents the public interest in such matters, supported the will being sealed at the hearing in London, Sir Julian said.
The court heard that a man named Michael Johnson was prepared to represent Scappaticci's interests provided that the will was sealed.
Christopher Buckley, representing Mr Johnson, said that making Scappaticci's will publicly available would be 'undesirable' and 'inappropriate', and that Mr Johnson feared his life being put at risk if the will was made open to inspection.
Sir Julian said that there was 'the need to protect (Mr Johnson) and those named in the will from the real risk of serious physical harm or even death because they might be thought to be guilty by association' with Scappaticci.
Jon Boutcher authored the interim report into the findings of Operation Kenova (Liam McBurney/PA)
He said: 'The real risk to his life and wellbeing which the deceased faced in his lifetime is amply demonstrated.'
He continued: 'Publication of the will would be both undesirable and inappropriate.'
The judge concluded that holding the hearing in public would have 'defeated the whole object' of the bid to have the will sealed.
Sir Julian said in his 18-page ruling that Scappaticci was alleged to have been a leading member of the Provisional IRA, and was part of the 'Nutting Squad' from around 1980 until the mid-1990s, which interrogated suspected informers during the Troubles.
In 2003, media reports claimed that Scappaticci had spied on the IRA for the British government, and that while working for both organisations, 'was responsible for the torture and murder of dozens of alleged IRA informers'.
Scappaticci always denied the claim but failed in a legal bid to force the British government to publicly state that he was not Stakeknife, forcing him to move to England in 2003.
Sir Julian said: 'He could not have remained in Northern Ireland, as he could have been killed by one side or the other.
'Even after he moved to England and changed his name, he continued to receive death threats.
'Such was their nature that he had to relocate at short notice several times over the years.'
Operation Kenova was then launched to probe the activities of Stakeknife within the Provisional IRA and crimes such as murder and torture, as well as the role played by the security services.
The probe, which was undertaken by Bedfordshire Police and cost tens of millions of pounds, reported its interim findings last year, after Scappaticci's death.
While it stopped short of naming him as Stakeknife, it found that more lives were probably lost than saved by the agent's actions.
The former Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police and author of the interim report, Jon Boutcher, said that the identity of Stakeknife 'will have to be confirmed at some point' but that he would 'have to leave this to my final report'.
He said: 'For now, it suffices to say that Mr Scappaticci was and still is inextricably bound up with and a critical person of interest at the heart of Operation Kenova.'
He continued: 'I believe that we found strong evidence of very serious criminality on the part of Mr Scappaticci and his prosecution would have been in the interests of victims, families and justice.'
Prosecutors said at the time the interim report was published that the examination of files containing evidence of serious criminality by Scappaticci was at an advanced stage at the time of his death.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jimmy Savile would have targeted children online today, says minister
Jimmy Savile would have targeted children online today, says minister

Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Times

Jimmy Savile would have targeted children online today, says minister

It is 'inconceivable' that Jimmy Savile would not have targeted children online today, a cabinet minister has said, as she appeared to double down on accusations that Reform was aligning itself with predators. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, had accused Nigel Farage siding with 'people like Jimmy Savile' with his opposition to new online safety laws. On Wednesday, Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, repeatedly refused to repeat the comment but told Times Radio: 'I think the point that Peter was making is that predators today, sexual predators today, operate online. 'And if social media had been around in the same way as it is today, when Jimmy Savile was committing those crimes against young children, then it's inconceivable that Jimmy Savile wouldn't have been in the online space as well. 'It is a fact that Nigel Farage and the Reform Party have said that they would repeal the Online Safety Act in its entirety, when of course some of the most significant provisions of that legislation is to protect children from predators, from seeing pornographic material on their phones and on their computers. 'And so Nigel Farage doesn't like the truth of the matter when my colleague explains to him the importance of the Online Safety Act and why he is so wrong to be wanting to repeal it.' Farage has said Kyle's comments were 'below the belt' and 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief'. He said: 'I bow to nobody in my determination to protect families and children. But I will not allow the government to hide behind children while attacking the fundamental British value of freedom of speech — and the liberty to tell the truth.' However, the technology secretary stood by his comments. Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday night he said: 'When Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, boasts about his plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, it makes my blood boil.' He said repealing the law would 'benefit' registered sex offenders and 'other disgusting predators who contact children and groom them online'. He said: 'I cannot understand how anyone can be against these measures. How could anyone question our duty to keep children safe online — particularly when it comes to child sexual abuse content and from online grooming? 'That's why I am so angry that Mr Farage thinks it's OK to promise to get rid of an act of parliament he clearly has not read and does not understand. It shows he is not serious about governing or keeping children safe. Instead, he is deliberately misleading the public. 'Now I've been criticised for getting angry at Mr Farage for his wilful disregard for the safety of children online, but I make no apologies for putting the interests of vulnerable children ahead of the interests of predators and child abusers, and the Reform leader's ego.' Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Zia Yusuf, the former Reform chairman, has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-government speech'. Kyle had told Sky News earlier in the day: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour government sink in its desperation? Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.'

Keir Starmer's Palestine stance risks pleasing no one
Keir Starmer's Palestine stance risks pleasing no one

New Statesman​

time28 minutes ago

  • New Statesman​

Keir Starmer's Palestine stance risks pleasing no one

Photo by Toby Melville / AFP via Getty Images Keir Starmer found himself politically cornered on Palestine. More than a third of the cabinet, including Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, privately – and in Wes Streeting's case, publicly – pushed for faster recognition of statehood. Over 130 Labour MPs signed a letter to the Prime Minister demanding the same. Only a month after the welfare vote debacle, Starmer could not afford to become isolated from his party once more (recall how Tony Blair's support of Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon hastened his downfall). The result was an emergency cabinet meeting yesterday and the dramatic announcement that the UK will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel abides by a ceasefire and commits to a two-state solution (a shift that Jonathan Powell, Starmer's national security adviser, prepared the ground for in the US last week). Support for Palestinian statehood in principle isn't new – it first became Labour policy under Ed Miliband in 2014 – but this plan most certainly is. Until yesterday, the government's stance was that recognition was dependent on a prior ceasefire and a long-term peace plan (including the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas). In short, non-recognition of Palestine was the default outcome. Now this position has, in effect, been reversed: a ceasefire is no longer a precondition, making recognition by far the likeliest result. In practice, government sources make clear, they do not expect Israel to follow the UK's conditions (Benjamin Netanyahu has never favoured a two-state solution). While there are still 'demands' on Hamas, including the release of the hostages and the acceptance of a ceasefire, it's telling that these are not being presented as conditions (though No 10 emphasises that 'we will judge both parties on their progress before making a final decision in September'). Not for the first time in Starmer's premiership, it's a nuanced position that has managed to upset both sides for different reasons. 'Starmer rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims,' Netanyahu declared last night, a critique echoed by Nigel Farage and much of the British right (though No 10 will be relieved by Donald Trump's unusually phlegmatic response: 'That's OK, it doesn't mean I have to agree'). Hostage families have warned that 'the UK's approach risks disincentivising Hamas from releasing the hostages'. Meanwhile, a striking array of left and liberal figures, including Ed Davey, Jeremy Corbyn and the Greens' likely next leader Zack Polanski all level the same charge at Starmer: that he is treating Palestinian statehood as a 'bargaining chip'. Labour critics take much the same view: recognition should have been both faster and unconditional. 'It's certainly not a moral awakening, more a strategic repositioning,' one prominent MP tells me. Downing Street insists that Starmer's move is both principled – he regards Palestinian statehood as an 'inalienable' right – and pragmatic: the announcement is timed to advance peace amid a humanitarian catastrophe. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe But the danger is clear: that a decision driven by politics may have all too few political benefits. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels] Related

British brothers, aged 11 and 13, drown off Spanish beach
British brothers, aged 11 and 13, drown off Spanish beach

BBC News

time28 minutes ago

  • BBC News

British brothers, aged 11 and 13, drown off Spanish beach

Two British brothers, aged 11 and 13, have died after drowning off a beach on the east coast of Spain, according to local boys died on Tuesday evening after entering the water at Llarga beach in Salou, Tarragona, the civil protection force for the Catalonia region services were called at 20:47 local time and the boys' father, who had also entered the water, was rescued medical units were dispatched to the scene and police and fire services also attended. Authorities also sent a team of psychologists to support the deaths bring the number of fatalities on Catalan beaches to 16 since the summer season began on 15 June - five more than the same period last year, officials added.A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office said: "We are supporting the family of two British children who have died in Spain and are in contact with the local authorities."The civil protection force urged "the importance of taking extreme precautions on beaches, swimming pools and inland waters this summer".It comes after a number of other British deaths in Spain this British men, aged 19 and 26, died in separate incidents at a hotel and music venue in Ibiza earlier this month.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store