Latest news with #NCND
Sunday World
04-07-2025
- Sunday World
‘Scapaticci Clause' being used to shut down questions about ‘Winkie' Irvine
Irvine's conviction continues to create ongoing tensions within the UVF, the loyalist terror group to which he belonged. A procedure once condemned by PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher is being used to shut down questions about Winston 'Winkie' Irvine, the Sunday World can reveal. And the 'Scapaticci Clause' — as the process is known informally to members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland — is also being used by the Court Service. One of its functions at present, it appears, is to deny the release of information relating to the recently convicted gunrunner Winston 'Winkie' Irvine. All this is taking place while the fallout from Irvine's conviction continues to create ongoing tensions within the UVF, the loyalist terror group to which he belonged. At a recent hush-hush meeting of the UVF's 'B Coy' in a Shankill Road social club, Irvine was shown the red card by the very men he once commanded. UVF leaders sat stoney-faced while foot soldiers listed a litany of complaints against the former 'B Coy' boss. Several respected loyalists demanded to know how Irvine went from street rioter who sparked a bloody internecine feud with the UDA in 2000 to the very top of the UVF. Shankill man 'Harmless' Harry Stockman — who is believed to hold the rank of No2 in the loyalist terror group hierarchy and is seen as a supporter of Irvine — failed to attend the meeting. Instead, Stockman left it to veteran UVF boss John 'Bunter' Graham to deal with rank-and-file unrest. The fury felt among the organisation's First Battalion — which exerts influence throughout the greater Shankill — cannot be over-stated, sources say. John 'Bunter' Graham It is believed Graham — now in his early 80s — had been planning an exit strategy as he headed towards retirement, but any move to stand down at the moment would be viewed with suspicion inside the secretive world of the UVF. Before taking over the reins of the PSNI, Chief Constable Jon Boutcher headed the Kenova Inquiry, which investigated allegations of state collusion inside the Provisional IRA's Internal Security Unit, also known as 'The Nutting Squad'. And he often criticised official state policy of 'neither confirming or denying', more commonly known as NCND orders. But many legal eagles now believe the police service he commands has arguably adopted a similar information policy once heavily criticised by the PSNI supremo. And they have given it the unofficial title of the 'Scappaticci Clause' — after Belfast-born Freddie Scappaticci who, after he was recruited by the British Secret Service, successfully operated at the very top of the IRA for decades. This is because the public first became aware of the state's practice of repeatedly 'neither confirming or denying' inquiries relating to the agent codenamed 'Stakeknife'. Jon Boutcher is on record as stating he disagreed with the policy, as it created a climate of suspicion and conspiracy. Freddie Scappaticci While giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last year, Mr Boutcher said: 'By this Iron-Curtain approach it leads to a lack of trust and confidence towards the security forces. It is unnecessary and the world has moved on from that.' But despite Boutcher's assertion that the 'world has moved on' from the use of the so-called Scappaticci Clause, last week the PSNI used a similar strategy to block Sunday World inquiries into secret information the PSNI held on Irvine, also known until 2007 as Winston Gibney. Two weeks ago, the Sunday World revealed the UVF man had changed his name by deed poll from the ancient Irish one of Gibney to Irvine because he believed his original name was 'too Catholic'. The Sunday World had written to the PSNI with a number of queries relating to the man now known as Winston Irvine. Initially the PSNI press office ignored our communication. When pressed, a curt reply was issued in bold print stating: 'We have no further comment to make in relation to this matter.' Deed poll notice Winston 'Winkie' Irvine The Sunday World made a similar request, linked to the legal entities known as Winston Irvine and Winston Gibney, to the Court Service of Northern Ireland. sensitive In a written reply, the Court Service Communications department used three separate legal clauses to invoke its right to use the term 'neither confirm nor deny'. And the Court Service also stated that to 'confirm or deny... would in itself disclose sensitive or potentially damaging information'. But local lawyers we canvassed over the responses from the PSNI and Court Service said the strategy would do nothing to instil public confidence. One said: 'It looks like the Scappaticci Clause is here to stay.' Since our exclusive that Winkie Irvine's true identity had been hidden from even his closest associates in loyalism, many activists on the Shankill Road are demanding answers. The want to know about Irvine's identity and background, as well as why he was able to survive for as long as he did. Many UVF 'A Coy' men claim suspicions around Irvine alone were enough to have him stripped of any protection he had from the loyalist organisation. 'Good men have been labelled touts for less,' a veteran UVF man told us. But the strongest vitriol was used in connection with members of the UVF leadership, who went out of their way to afford Irvine protection.
Rhyl Journal
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
Glasgow Times
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.'
Leader Live
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Leader Live
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.'
Western Telegraph
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Western Telegraph
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.'
