As the first two items relate to the British Army Board they will be taken together. Each Deputy will have five minutes and the Minister or Minister of State will have ten minutes in which to reply. Deputy Keaveney has given notice of her intention to raise the matter of the recent decision by the British Army Board to reject applications to discharge Guardsmen James Fisher and Mark Douglas Wright from the British Army.
Adjournment Debate. - British Army Personnel.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this very important matter. I thank Deputy Currie from the Fine Gael Party and Deputy Quinn from the Labour Party for their support on this issue.
After 30 years of violence in the North we have witnessed hundreds of murders, shootings, bombings and beatings, all of them shocking, brutal and disturbing. In some cases, the perpetrators have been caught, in others they have gone undetected. One of the inherent elements of the Good Friday Agreement is prisoner releases, a bitter pill for many people to swallow but generally an accepted and necessary part of achieving a lasting peace in the North.
This is not about the early release of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright but their reinstatement into the British Army after shooting dead 18 year old Peter McBride on the New Lodge Road area of North Belfast. It is about justice, democracy, the worth and value of a young Catholic man's life in the eyes of the British Army and the British Government. It is an issue that must be addressed on the floor of this House as a matter of urgency.
On 4 September 1992, Peter McBride, an 18 year old father of two, was stopped by a foot patrol of the Scots Guards in Spamount Street off the New Lodge Road in Belfast. After an identity check and a thorough body search which found him to be unarmed, Peter ran from the patrol and was chased by the soldiers. They called upon him to stop but he did not. At this point, Guardsmen Wright and Fisher opened fire on Peter McBride. Two bullets struck him in the back, killing him.
At their trial in 1995, the judge, Lord Justice Kelly, a former member of the Northern Ireland Parliament and a former Attorney General of the Unionist Government at Stormont, found that Fisher and Wright had been both evasive and untruthful in their evidence and that they both lied about material aspects of the case. In particular, he was satisfied that they had seen Peter McBride being searched by their commander. He regarded Fisher's defence that he believed Peter McBride to be carrying a coffee jar bomb in a white paper or plastic bag to be untruthful. Justice Kelly stated:
I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that Guardsman Fisher held or may have held an honest belief that the deceased carried or may have carried a coffee jar bomb.
Peter McBride was retreating from them, all the time increasing the distance between them. He also found that the incident was not a panic situation requiring a split second decision or a split second action, if any action was required at all. Further, the trial judge found that the two soldiers had aimed deliberate shots at Peter McBride who posed no threat to them. Both soldiers' defence was thoroughly discredited. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal heard the soldiers' appeals and conducted a lengthy review of the cases. Both appeals were unanimously dismissed.
Fisher and Wright were released in September 1998 and flown to Catterick barracks in Yorkshire to meet their commanding officer. The following month the Army Board decided that both men could continue their careers in the services under an exceptional circumstances clause. According to the Army Board they had committed only an error of judgment.
In 1999, Mrs. McBride applied to the High Court for leave to challenge the Army Board's decision and was granted a judicial review. In this regard, Justice Kerr gave judgment that a new Army Board must be constituted to reconsider the future of the guardsmen. Finally, in November this year, the new board found that the two guardsmen should be allowed to remain in the army. This decision, given the facts I have outlined, is unbelievable. It is a decision which has been condemned by the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints and the Catholic Primate, Dr. Seán Brady. While human rights organisations in the North, including the Pat Finucance Centre and the Human Rights Commission have outlined their concern, the political parties here tonight have united to condemn this decision which is an affront to justice and democracy.
It is worth pointing out that over the past couple of years Guardsmen Fisher and Wright have not been confined to pen pushing or other such duties but rather have been sent to serve in war torn Kosovo. It is also worth pointing out that, since 1995, 1,406 soldiers have been tried for drug related offences and discharged from the army. What does this say about the British Army's priorities?
We can take away a number of implicit points from the decision of the Army Board to allow these two men to continue to serve in the British Army – the murder of a young Catholic man on the streets of Belfast is not as heinous or serious a crime as smoking drugs and you can kill a citizen in Northern Ireland and be deemed fit to serve in other areas of conflict. This decision is, quite frankly, a disgrace. It has served to devalue human life in Northern Ireland. It has served to discredit the British armed forces and has caused further grief and anguish for the family of Peter McBride.
At a time when people talk about confidence building measures, mutual respect and human rights, I call upon the British Government to examine this decision. It is both insensitive and unjust. The McBride family deserve better. Ordinary members of the public reliant on the protection of the British Army deserve better. Mr. Justice Kerr clearly stated:
The public has a legitimate interest in whether those who have been convicted of murder should be allowed to continue to serve as members of the armed forces.
I call for the reversal of this decision and the immediate discharge of both Wright and Fisher from the British armed forces.
I am pleased to share in what is effectively a motion representing a united front on both sides of the House on this issue.
The murder of Peter McBride in the New Lodge area of Belfast was that of a young man of 18 years, unarmed, shot in the back in circumstances in which the two soldiers who perpetrated the murder were not under attack and could justify their actions by a plea of losing their heads in a situation of intense pressure, nor was it accidental. The two soldiers were sentenced to life imprisonment but were released after serving only six years and were allowed to rejoin their regiment, the Scots Guards. Both these aspects of the case provoked outrage from the relatives and friends of the murdered youth and a large section of the Nationalist community – the release after such a minimal period and being accepted back into the Army.
The decision by the Army Board to retain the two soldiers was quashed at a Belfast court on the application of Mrs. McBride. The Army Board revisited the case and now Mrs. McBride is to seek a declaration again on the grounds that it is mandatory to discharge soldiers imprisoned by a civil court unless there are exceptional reasons. What could be the exceptional reasons that would justify again giving guns to people who murdered with them in the past? Among them, apparently, was the youth and relative inexperience of the soldiers at the time they committed the crime in 1992 and that they had no previous criminal records and had learned a bitter and lasting lesson.
I am not one for recrimination, vindictiveness or seeking revenge as distinct from justice. I accept that people can be guilty of the most serious offences and yet be rehabilitated, to sincerely regret what they have been responsible for and to lead responsible and even lives of service to the community. The Good Friday Agreement had this hope and commitment at its core. Hundreds of men, some guilty of the most heinous and brutal crimes, have been released, many with years of their sentences still to serve. Deputy Keaveney and I are not arguing that Mark Wright and James Fisher should be returned to prison. They have their freedom and, in the circumstances of the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement, that is their entitlement. However, being allowed back into the British Army to carry guns and be put back into the position where they committed murder in the past is a different matter.
Scottish regiments serve in Northern Ireland. We hope the day will soon come when they will no longer be with us. The success of the peace process will ensure that men with arms will no longer be part of the scene in Northern Ireland but that day, unfortunately, is not yet. What assurances have we and, even if we had, what credence would we give them, that these two men will not patrol the streets of Northern Ireland?
Apart from Northern Ireland, there are other parts of the world where British troops interface with local populations in places such as the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, Africa and elsewhere and possibly even side by side with our soldiers in the new European rapid reaction force. Should any self-respecting army allow in its ranks, particularly in sensitive situations, men who have been responsible for cold blooded murder in the past?
There is the question of sensitivity. What message does the continued employment of these convicted killers in the so-called forces of law and order give to ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland, particularly those in the Nationalist community, that they can place their trust and confidence in those responsible for protecting life and property? That is a crucial issue and I hope this decision will be revisited.
I thank Deputies Keaveney and Currie for raising this important issue. I join them in deploring the recent decision by the British Army Board to reject applications to discharge Guardsmen Fisher and Wright from the British Army and its direction that they be permitted to continue their army service.
It is now over eight years since Peter McBride was murdered near his home in the New Lodge area of north Belfast by two soldiers – Guardsmen Fisher and Wright – who were serving with the Ist Battalion Scots Guards. Peter, who was just 18 years old, was stopped by the soldiers on patrol and, when he ran away, was pursued through a number of streets before being shot in the back.
The two soldiers, James Fisher and Mark Wright, were charged with murder the day after the shooting. Their trial took place in 1994. The trial judge, Lord Justice Kelly, found that Fisher and Wright had been both "evasive and untruthful" in their evidence and that they both lied about material aspects of the case. He did not believe Fisher's defence that he believed Peter McBride to be carrying a coffee jar bomb. He also found that the incident was not a panic situation requiring a split-second decision or a split-second action and concluded that the two soldiers had aimed deliberate shots at Peter McBride, who posed no threat to them at all. Both soldiers were convicted of murder in February 1995. On 27 November of that year, their convictions were upheld on appeal by the then Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Hutton.
Following strong representations from supporters of the soldiers, including an intensive campaign in parts of the British media, the then Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam, announced in July 1998 that she would review the soldiers' cases and, following that review, they were released on 2 September 1998.
The McBride family campaigned – through the Pat Finucane Centre – for the two guardsmen to receive a dishonourable discharge from the army. However, on 3 November of that year, an Army Board decided to retain them in the Army because of "exceptional circumstances". The Army board stated that, in reaching its decision, it had taken account, inter alia, of the following circumstances: that the guardsmen “had shown contrition for their action which they admitted was an error of judgment; that they had paid the price for their action with a lengthy prison sentence during which time their behaviour had been exemplary; their continued loyalty to the army and their previously unblemished military records; and finally their wish to continue serving their country”.
Following, the board decision, the family continued its campaign to have the soldiers discharged from the British Army. As well as having the support of human rights groups and non-governmental organisations such as the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry, the family has the support of elected representatives in this House, in Britain and in Northern Ireland in their campaign. The Taoiseach met the family in December 1998 and reiterated his support for them and his understanding of their concerns. During that meeting, the McBrides stressed that what was important for them was not that the soldiers had been released, but that they had been retained in the British Army.
The Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures, in his 1998 report, included strong criticism of the Army Board decision to reinstate the soldiers and referred to the negative impact such a decision would have on Nationalist confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
The McBride family applied for a judicial review of the army board decision in February 1999 and in September of that year, Mr. Justice Kerr granted them a judicial review into the decision on the basis that the army board could not have found that the guardsmen's actions were a result of an "error of judgment", if as the board claimed, it accepted the findings of the trial judge, Lord Justice Kelly.
The British Secretary of State for Defence, Geoffrey Hoon, responded that, having considered the outcome of the judicial review in detail and having accepted its conclusion that the Army Board decision was, in one respect, flawed, the Army Board would consider the case completely afresh.
The newly reconstituted board spent 14 months considering the case, during which the delay in bringing the case to a conclusion caused increasing concern and distress to the McBrides. Through the British-Irish Secretariat in Belfast, officials of my Department raised our concern at the delay with the British Government on a number of occasions. On 24 November last, the family of Peter McBride was informed that Fisher and Wright are to be retained in the British Army. On that day, our disappointment and dismay at the decision was conveyed to the British authorities through the secretariat in Belfast. We also asked what means of redress are available to the family and await a response.
Understandably, there has been immediate and widespread criticism of the British Army Board decision. Mrs. Jean McBride, Peter's mother, said that she "was completely devastated by the decision". The Independent Assessor for Military complaints, Jim McDonald, said that the two guardsmen were convicted of murder and that in his view, there was no room for murderers in the army. He said that he too was absolutely dismayed by the decision of the Army Board, which sent a very negative message to the people of Northern Ireland and to the McBride family.
I note that in a statement of 24 November, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, said that the decision was entirely a matter for the Army Board. He added that he had suggested to the Secretary of State for Defence that "given the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for Fisher and Wright to serve in Northern Ireland." The Secretary of State confirmed that the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed.
I am also aware that on 5 December, the Northern Ireland Assembly debated an SDLP motion condemning the decision to retain the two guardsmen. The SDLP considered it incredible that the reconstituted Army board could properly have come once again to the decision to retain two convicted murderers in the army. Sinn Féin, in supporting the motion, considered that double standards applied in making the decision. While he did not reflect general Unionist views on the issue, the Ulster Unionist Assembly member, Duncan Shipley-Dalton, supported the motion and, as a former member of the Royal Irish Regiment, expressed very grave concern at the retention of the two soldiers. During the same debate, the Alliance Party described the decision to retain the two soldiers as wrong and said that it was "both insensitive and counterproductive, as it could bring the forces of law and order into disrepute". The Northern Ireland Women's Coalition expressed concern that, as work continues to build confidence in the Army and other security services, the decision could imply that the army is above the law and it said that "people are right to have high expectations of the security forces".
Officials of my Department have maintained contact with representatives of the McBride family. On the day the Army Board decision was made public, they conveyed to Mrs. McBride my disappointment at the decision to retain the two guardsmen as well my sympathy for the family. An official of my Department will be meeting Mrs. McBride shortly to discuss the case and to examine how we can further assist the family. I welcome the fact that the family has been granted a judicial review of the Army Board decision in Belfast's High Court on 19 December and I commend their determination to see a just outcome to this case.
At a time when we are seeking to build and sustain Nationalist confidence in the new beginning promised in the Good Friday Agreement, I am deeply disturbed by the decision to retain as serving members of the British Army two men who have been convicted in a court of law of the murder of Peter McBride. As the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints said, that decision sends a negative message to the people of Northern Ireland and to the McBride family. If we are to move forward, as we must, it is vital that the security forces must not only uphold, but be seen to uphold, the best standards demanded in a democratic society.
I once again thank and commend Deputies Keaveney and Currie, assure them that I will continue to take a close and personal interest in the case and commend their motion to the House.