,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread - I have tried to stay out of the debate on an amnesty for soldiers who served in NI. But Lord Dannatt’s comments on #r4today that allegations against soldiers were fully investigated ‘at the time’ is not accurate in many cases, esp in the 1970s, and should be discussed.
The Royal Military Police made clear in a subsequent 1973 memorandum that until the end of 1972 neither they nor the RUC collected evidence for criminal investigation purposes - except in the most egregious, unavoidably self-evident cases.
It is worth quoting from the 1973 Royal Military Police Memorandum: ‘With both the RMP and RUC sympathetic towards the soldier, who after all was doing an incredibly difficult job, he was highly unlikely to make a statement incriminating himself..’.
‘...for the RMP investigator was put for information for managerial not criminal purposes and, using their power of discretion, it was equally unlikely that the RUC would prefer charges except in this most extreme purposes’
‘Managerial purposes’ were defined as ‘counter-propaganda, defending against claims’ among other things.
Moreover, even when investigations did take place, such as during the Widgery Inquiry, there was often little appetite to challenge the military version of events - as later pointed out in critical detail by Lord Saville.
This changed under the stewardship of Sir Barry Shaw who was appointed as DPP in NI in 1972.
However, the admission by the Royal Military Police of pre-1972 - and post-1972 standards of investigation is a matter of ongoing concern. A number of the #Legacy cases date from this period.
The government should be careful about dismissing such concerns as simply Republican ‘lawfare’ or ‘Phil Shiner - Iraq Mark 2’. Implicitly or directly comparing decisions by British judges, the PSNI and those of a disgraced lawyer does nothing for respect for the rule of law.
This is also about recognising, as David Cameron did in the case of Bloody Sunday, that British justice did not always meet the standard UK/Irish citizens deserved, particularly in the early years of the Troubles.
A mechanism for dealing with the past is long over-due - one that recognises the pain of all victims of the conflict, including soldiers, and grapples with the complexity faced by those young soldiers and police doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with dignity and courage.
Instead of honestly trying to find one, some members of the UK government are in danger of ignoring those who care about due process/ the rule of law and the armed forces - the latter must defend the former. An effective amnesty for soldiers would set a dangerous precedent.
Internationally it would sully the UK’s reputation - very few countries indemnify former soldiers from prosecution if the police/courts believe there is sufficient evidence to do so. And it would pour toxicity into the politics of Northern Ireland at a very delicate time.
