Michael McDowell pushed for British amnesty for IRA members without trial, UK files reveal
argued as attorney general in 2000 that the British government could avoid a struggle to pass Westminster legislation to give 'on-the-run'
IRA
members an amnesty.
Instead, Mr McDowell, who is now a member of Seanad Éireann, repeatedly suggested that the British could use a centuries-old law to grant pardons without prosecuting any of them. This seems to have been met with astonishment by British officials.
The difficulties posed by
Sinn Féin's
demands for 'on-the-run' IRA members – some of whom were sought for offences such as murder – to be given guarantees features in British archive files released on Tuesday.
The treatment of the IRA 'on the runs', better known simply as 'OTRs', became a major controversy in 2014 when it was revealed that nearly 300 IRA members had been given so-called 'comfort letters' saying they were not then wanted by British police.
READ MORE
The issue emerged in February 2014 when John Downey, an alleged IRA member, faced trial in London for the July 1982 Hyde Park bombing, which killed four British soldiers and seven horses.
His Old Bailey trial collapsed when it emerged that he had received his comfort letter in 2007 even though there was an active warrant for his arrest. The trial judge halted the trial after ruling this was an abuse of process.
Under Mr McDowell's proposal in 2000, which went farther than the comfort letter tactic later used, the British government would have been able, he said, to avoid bringing strongly opposed immunity legislation before Westminster.
The idea 'first surfaced' at a meeting between Irish and British officials in Dublin in early November 2000 when the British side was told Mr McDowell believed London could grant 'pardons before convictions' to IRA members.
The proposal was outlined in greater depth to the British side in November 2000 at 'a hastily arranged' meeting, where Mr McDowell was described in a British note as being 'quite a student of the English legal system, and admired its flexibility'.
However, British officials doubted the idea from the off, saying a royal pardon could be used only after sentence, while a free pardon could expunge the effects of a conviction.
Mr McDowell came back to his idea when he was included in the Irish delegation, which included
Bertie Ahern
, then taoiseach, which travelled from London with British prime minister
Tony Blair
for an
EU
meeting in Zagreb, Croatia, shortly afterwards.
Here, Mr McDowell again argued that wanted IRA members could be given 'a prosecution amnesty', citing the decision by the British not to prosecute Soviet spy Anthony Blunt for treachery.
'His basic thesis seemed to be that our legal system was sufficiently flexible to allow immunity to be granted without the need for primary legislation,' the Northern Ireland Office's political director, Bill Jeffreys, told an official in the British attorney general's office.
He said he had told Mr McDowell his proposal ran counter to the views of the British attorney general, who was 'unwilling' to give immunity to individuals on general public interest grounds.
However, if Mr McDowell was arguing that the Northern Ireland secretary of state could 'pre-empt prosecution in a whole class of cases' then that would be 'an entirely new departure'.
Widening the grounds for immunity 'seemed to me to run entirely against the trend, and would be very difficult to justify in today's conditions, when we would be expected to seek the necessary powers from parliament', Mr Jeffreys also said.
Separately, the files also show the efforts Sinn Féin made to ensure leading IRA figures in the United States such as Gabriel Megahey would not be deported. Now, 25 years later, they are now facing fresh expulsion attempts by
Donald Trump's
administration.
Bill Clinton
, US president at the time, had wanted to 'tie off the loose end' created by the six men's issues before he left office, fearing the incoming
George W Bush
presidency would be less sympathetic.
In 1997, US secretary of state
Madeleine Albright
'persuaded the US attorney general to suspend deportation action' against the men on 'the foreign policy grounds that it would contribute to the NI political process'.
The importance of the OTR issue to Sinn Féin is evident throughout the files, with the party's Gerry Kelly 'grumbling' to Northern Ireland Office officials 'that the lack of movement was causing Sinn Féin great difficulties'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland's latest investment plan: A sceptic's guide
How do we make sense of all the billions announced in new State investment spending ? The key message is that the Government is going for it in terms of the sums it is committing – and this has big consequences. By doing so it is responding to economic growth and population increases, which have been well in advance of expectations. Here is how the numbers add up and the questions they raise. Where the money comes from : The State has allocated an additional €34 billion to its investment plans over the five years from 2026 to 2030. This is a big increase, with the overall total coming to just over €102 billion. About €20 billion of the extra cash is due to come from what might be called cash reserves – the €14 billion from the Apple tax payment, €2.5 billion from the sale of AIB shares and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund established by the Government. This still leaves a gap to be paid for, however, and this will be met by running down budget surpluses in the years ahead. There is also a commitment to tighter control of day-to-day spending to leave more cash for investment, though an increase of 6.4 per cent is pencilled in again here next year. Tariffs: Why has Donald Trump threatened the EU again? Listen | 47:35 The State will run down a lot of its financial leeway. Already the Department of Finance is facing a smaller budget surplus year than forecast in springtime. The budget sums will come under further pressure if economic growth slows sharply. Where the money will be spent : The Government announced the overall spending allocations, but not the list of projects involved, though some of the big ones, including the Dublin MetroLink , are known. As ESRI professor Alan Barrett said on RTÉ radio, the normal approach in a National Development Plan (NDP) is to start with population and growth projections and then develop a list of projects that are based on this and outline how they relate to each other. Instead, departments are now to come up with their own priorities. The list should be published around budget time, we are told, but with the review well flagged for months, it seems a lot of last-minute haggling means it has not yet happened. As Taoiseach Micheál Martin said, previous NDPs might have been too long. But this one, right now, looks a bit flimsy. Surviving a downturn : Taoiseach Micheál Martin said at the press conference launching the strategy that the goal is to keep investing, even if the economy slows or hits difficulties. Slashing investment spending after the financial crash has had a big economic cost for the Republic. But with no details of the expected budget position next year – never mind in subsequent years – published in the summer economic statement, the other key document published on Tuesday, we have no feeling for how the Department of Finance sees all the numbers adding up. Budget surpluses will be smaller, it says, but we do not know by how much. We are not clear on the appetite to borrow to fund investment in the years ahead if the corporate tax take takes a heavy hit. In fairness, the Government will want to see the outcome of the EU-US tariff talks, which have big implications. If there is a bad outcome, we are told the €9.4 billion budget will be pulled back. That would be the acid test of where priorities lie. Delivering the projects : Senior Ministers spoke at length at the NDP launch about the barriers to delivery from planning and bureaucracy. This raises the obvious question of why they did not do much about them when they were in government last time around, including the multiphase approval processes for local authority housing, for example. A new Planning Act was passed, but only in the dying days of the last coalition. The fiscal council has noted that the State has consistently struggled to meet investment spending targets in recent years. And, as the document states, finding construction workers is a challenge. Now Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers is examining recommendations from an expert group on the delivery issue, and some important moves are on the table. Succeeding here is central to its plans and rebuilding credibility on project delivery.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the State's new investment plans: the work is only starting
The Government's plan to invest more to address the infrastructure deficits in the Irish economy is a move in the right direction. Shortfalls in housing, water, energy and transport are not only crippling competitiveness but affecting people's daily lives. The Government is correct to push ahead with its planning, despite the international uncertainty. A growing economy and a rising population have left recent administrations running to catch up. International investors have been increasingly outspoken about Ireland's infrastructural shortfalls. All of this needs to be addressed. And Taoiseach Micheál Martin is correct when he says that State investment spending must be protected no matter what. However, the plans published yesterday raise of number of important questions. The lack of any detail of the projects to be included in the plan is somewhat puzzling. Everyone knew in the final period of the last government and the opening months of this one that the review was due. So why has no list of projects been completed? Because of this, as Prof Alan Barrett of the Economic and Social Research Institute pointed out, we do not have any of the essential detail on how the projects all fit together. READ MORE There are, of course, a significant number of projects which we do know about and which will be funded by the money now being put aside. The focus on vital areas such as water, wastewater and energy is important. But with last-minute rows over housing in particular, it is unclear that the Government yet has a convincing plan in this key area. An updated housing plan, due in the autumn, needs to give a clear view . The Government is also – belatedly – looking seriously at the blockages and delays to project planning. This is welcome but long overdue. These issues have been hiding in plain sight in recent years, leading to extraordinary delays and additional costs in projects large and small. Too much time was lost here by the last government. This one needs to get serious on the issue of the delivery. This will be uncomfortable politically and it remains to be seen if the Government has the stomach for the necessary fights. The scale of the investment commitments being made are significant. And paying for it will use a lot of the leeway in the national finances and also the cash put aside from the Apple tax payment and the sale of AIB shares. This means a higher level of risk. To create the required leeway in the national finances – and ensure yet more cash is not pumped into the economy – the increased investment spending must be combined with much tighter control of day-to-day spending. This is the trade off. If this does not happen, then the scale of the financial risks facing the State will increase yet further. And they are already high enough.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Omagh bombing survivor wants High Court to compel State to hold public inquiry into atrocity
Two people directly affected by the Omagh bombing want the High Court to compel the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity. Emmet Tunney, who survived the 1998 dissident republican bombing, says the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Mr Tunney's case states that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. He alleges the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Mr Tunney's court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. READ MORE Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, his papers say. Shawneen Conway, whose 18-year-old brother Gareth was killed in the bombing, is seeking to bring an action similar to Mr Tunney's, the High Court heard on Tuesday. A total of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. In the High Court on Tuesday, Ruaidhrí Giblin, for Mr Tunney, sought an early date for his application seeking the court's permission to bring the case. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Tunney's and Ms Conway's applications for court permission next week. Mr Tunney, from Omagh, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing and he wants a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of his rights. He wants to bring his case against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. His case claims some of the perpetrators of the bombing are believed to have operated within the Republic of Ireland. He alleges there were failures in intelligence sharing and co-operation between Irish and UK authorities before the bombing. Authorities in the Republic may have had prior knowledge of the Real IRA's planning, his documents claim. Mr Tunney also argues an Irish government inquiry is required in circumstances where there are limitations on the jurisdiction of the UK government's inquiry. For example, he says, the UK government cannot make findings as to whether Irish authorities are culpable for a failure to supply information relating to the bombing. In the UK Omagh bombing inquiry, its chairman, Lord Turnbull, heard arguments over the last two days regarding applications from some survivor and family groups seeking to be represented by special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings and they raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they were not. However, a lawyer for the UK government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act and she cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'important and interesting'. He will provide a written decision 'in due course'. – Additional reporting PA
