JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS (Sub-Committee on the Barron Report) debate

Chairman

I welcome, in particular, the members of the Ludlow-Sharkey family and thank them for attending. I also welcome their solicitor, Mr. James McGuill. The sub-committee expresses its deepest sympathy to the relatives of the late Mr. Ludlow. We hope the publication of the third Barron report on the murder of Seamus Ludlow and the hearings which will be conducted by the sub-committee over the next four weeks will help the family in finding closure over his tragic death.

On 3 November 2005 the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights was asked by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to consider the report of the independent commission of inquiry on the murder of Seamus Ludlow and the observations made thereon by former Commissioner Wren and Mr. Justice Barron. This sub-committee was established for that purpose. We have been asked to consider the report in public session in order that the joint committee can report back to Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann by 31 March for the purposes of making such recommendations as the committee considers appropriate and any changes to legislative provisions and the legislative and other changes, if any, required in regard to the notification to the next of kin of inquests in regard to murders or deaths in suspicious circumstances.

This is the third set of hearings on inquiries made by Mr. Justice Barron. The first two have proved this kind of parliamentary activity to be vital and necessary for looking into events which have cast a long shadow over our country and the tragic history of this island during the past 35 to 36 years.

The sub-committee is composed of seven members. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and also of the sub-committee, the other members of which are Deputy Máire Hoctor, the Government convenor on the joint committee; Deputy Finian McGrath, Independent Deputy for Dublin North-Central; Deputy Joe Costello, Labour Party spokesperson on justice and law reform; Deputy Peter Power, a Fianna Fáil Deputy for Limerick East; Deputy Gerard Murphy of Fine Gael, Vice Chairman of the joint committee, and Senator Jim Walsh, Fianna Fáil spokesperson on justice and law reform in the Seanad. Mr. Hugh Mohan, senior counsel, is advising the sub-committee with Mr. Paul Anthony McDermott.

The contributions of Mr. Ludlow's relatives are invaluable to the workings of the sub-committee. I formally thank them for their attendance this morning. The sub-committee wanted to commence the hearings by hearing what the Ludlow-Sharkey family had to say in order to place it at the centre of the work we were doing. I hope it feels and understands that purpose.

I want to go through some matters arising from Mr. Justice Barron's report to give context to our deliberations for the wider audience. Judge Barron begins by stating:

Seamus Ludlow, a 47 year old, unmarried forestry worker from Thistle Cross, Dundalk, County Louth, was killed in the early hours of the morning on 2 May 1976. He was shot a number of times. To date, no one has been charged in relation to his death.

On 30 January 1979 a letter was sent from the RUC Chief Constable's office to Chief Superintendent, Security and Intelligence, Garda Heardquarters, Dublin. It was headed, "Murder of Seamus Ludlow at Ravensdale, County Louth on 2 May 1976", and read as follows:

It has been learned from a source believed to be reliable that the [.....] members of the Red Hand Commandos (RHC) were involved in the murder of Seamus Ludlow at Ravensdale, County Louth, on 2 May 1976.

The RUC had also offered to arrange interviews with two of the suspects but it seems the offer was not taken up at the time.

Towards the end of 1995, members of the Ludlow-Sharkey family received information from a journalist to the effect that a group of loyalist extremists from mid-Ulster was responsible for Seamus's murder. Over a series of meetings, the journalist named specific persons whom he believed should have been suspects for the murder. He suggested that the family hold a press conference and also contact the Garda Commissioner with this information.

On 2 May 1996, the 20th anniversary of Seamus's death, a press conference was held by the family in Dublin. A letter was also sent to the then Garda Commissioner. The letter expressed concern at the failure to effect a prosecution in the case and at "the general conduct of the investigation by the Gardaí at the time". In particular, it was said that in the period following the murder, the family had been led to believe, by individual gardaí, that republican paramilitaries were responsible. The letter concluded:

We would greatly appreciate, therefore, if you as Garda Commissioner could see your way to order a new investigation into the murder with a view to bringing to justice those responsible for this terrible crime. The Ludlow-Sharkey family pledge its total and full co-operation in any such new investigation and undertake to provide the Gardaí with the name of the person believed to be the killer. We should point out however that we understand the gardaí already possess this information.

A new investigation was ordered by the then Commissioner and this reactivation of the case brought to light information received from the RUC in 1979 concerning four loyalist suspects for the killing. When this was brought to the attention of the Commissioner in 1997, contact was made with the RUC and the four men were arrested by RUC officers in February 1998. The four, whose names were not among those given to the Ludlow-Sharkey family by the journalist in 1995-96, were interviewed and released. A file was then sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a decision on whether charges should be preferred against these men. No prosecution was brought.

In 2003, the then Commissioner replied to a letter sent by the inquiry — that is, Mr. Justice Barron's inquiry — regarding the failure of the Garda to question the suspects in 1979. Mr. Justice Barron concludes that Seamus Ludlow was murdered by loyalist extremists, seemingly at random. He states that the original investigation of 1976 was conducted competently and diligently by gardaí and that they are in no way to blame for the failure to identify the killers.

The key question for the inquiry was why the information supplied by the RUC in 1979 was not pursued. The inquiry believes that the only credible explanation for this is that a direction was given to the investigating officer at the time to abandon plans to have the suspects interviewed outside the jurisdiction. As to why this might have been the case, the inquiry has stated that such a policy may have led to demands for reciprocal arrangements being demanded by the RUC. The inquiry states:

Such a policy could have arisen out of a combination of one or more of the following factors:

1) A risk that republican subversives would target RUC officers coming to this jurisdiction;

2) A risk that republican subversives would view such co-operation with the RUC as a justification for attacking members of An Garda Síochána; and

3) A fear of the political consequences arising from the fact that a certain sector of the population would perceive any co-operation with the RUC in this State as a ceding of sovereignty to the British Government.

In considering these matters, it is very important that they should be viewed in the context of the times. The period 1976-1980 was one of huge turmoil. Deep divisions and distrust existed, not only between the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, but also between the governments of the United Kingdom and this State.

The Inquiry has been told that the British Government were pressing for greater co-operation on three security-related matters: hot pursuit across the border; permission for RUC officers to question suspects in the State, and overflights by British military aircraft. These three issues evoked strong reactions amongst ordinary people in the State, and such popular opposition was inevitably reflected in the policies and attitudes of the Gardaí and successive governments.

In the matter of the inquest, Mr. Justice Barron states that there appears to have been no justification for the failure to notify Kevin Ludlow of the date of the inquest into his brother's death. Given the nature and circumstances of the death, other family members should also have been notified. The fact that the inquest proceeded reflects a belief that because the cause of death was undisputed, the inquest procedure was a formality. While this was technically true, the decision to proceed in the absence of family members caused them unnecessary hurt and annoyance at a time of extraordinary sadness and difficulty in their lives.

The sub-committee will hear today from individual members of the Ludlow-Sharkey family, whom I again sincerely thank for their attendance. The sub-committee wanted to commence by hearing from the people most affected by this tragic event. In the afternoon session, it will hear from Justice for the Forgotten and British Irish Rights Watch. I welcome Ms Margaret Urwin, the secretary of Justice for the Forgotten and Cormac Ó Dúlacháin who are in the Public Gallery.

On the second day of proceedings, we will hear submissions from former Detective John Courtney and former Commissioner Lawrence Wren as well as other gardaí named in the report. We will also hear from Mr. Gerry Collins, who was Minister for Justice in 1979, and Deputy McDowell, the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In respect of the procedures and for the benefit of those present, it should be noted that the sub-committee is bound by very precise terms of reference beyond which it will not stray. In particular, the sub-committee is not conducting an investigation of its own into the events that happened during the period concerned, nor is it seeking to apportion guilt or innocence to any individual person or body. It has neither the jurisdiction nor the legal authority to perform any such function. We ask everybody appearing before us to respect the fact that we cannot stray beyond our terms of reference. Everyone who comes before us today and during the remainder of our hearings will do so voluntarily and we thank them all most sincerely for their attendance on that basis.

The sub-committee is very concerned that any person who appears before it is fully aware that he or she is not entitled to any form of statutory or parliamentary privilege. While members enjoy certain parliamentary privilege in respect of these proceedings, those attending or assisting us do not enjoy that same privilege.

The sub-committee expresses its gratitude to Mr. Justice Barron for the work he and his staff have done in producing the report we are about to consider. Before I invite Mr. Kevin Ludlow to speak, perhaps the representative from James McGuill Solicitors would like to make some introductory remarks.

Mr. James McGuill

The family are very grateful for the committee's invitation to participate today and will be adopting the position they have adopted with every former inquiry into this matter, which is one of open co-operation. The committee will hear from the family how they feel that co-operation and good faith was not rewarded in the past and how they have felt let down by official bodies that they have had to deal with before.

We will not be making legal submissions at the outset because we have been in discussion with Mr. Mohan and the intention is that we will make a legal submission at the conclusion of the submissions to the sub-committee. The submission, in short, will be to the effect that we are very anxious that the committee will, within its remit, examine the policy issues and considerations that are at play in this case. We accept that, under the Supreme Court ruling in Ardagh v. Maguire, the sub-committee cannot really deal with the actual facts of the Seamus Ludlow case. We will make a strong submission to the effect that this issue, the discrete examination of the facts in this case, is an appropriate one for examination by a public inquiry. In short, we say this is, effectively, either dereliction of duty or misconduct in public office. The evidence must be heard in public and the family must have an opportunity to direct questions to the principal actors. The public must hear that evidence.

We accept that the committee is constrained in its proceedings and that it cannot go as far as it or the family would like it to go. Therefore, it is a dual process and we are here to deal with the public policy issues. The family has tried to structure the submissions and contributions in a way that fits in with the modules proposed by the committee. However, there will be some duplication, although we will try to avoid it. The family is conscious of its position in terms of not having legal privilege and not, therefore, being fully in a position to express themselves. We are talking about 30 years of deception and upset for the family so some family members might find it difficult to express themselves. While they will do their best the committee must accept that this has been an appalling experience for them over three decades. However, we will try to give the committee a flavour of how an ordinary, law abiding family found themselves with a life changing set of circumstances and were abandoned, and their hurt compounded, by the conduct of the State authorities with which they had to deal.

That is our introduction. The family has given the committee a running order which they believe will be helpful to the committee's work. Obviously, however, the committee members will direct their own questions.

Chairman

Will Mr. Kevin Ludlow, a brother of the late Seamus Ludlow, address the committee?

Mr. Kevin Ludlow

We lost a brother and it is a shame to think of how the Garda treated the family. We were treated very badly for 20 years, until we started this process ten years ago. We got nothing but lies from the Garda, who blamed the IRA or members of the family for what happened. How they carried on was absolutely wrong. When I saw the body in the ditch and identified it, I just could not believe it. To think that our brother was murdered and we were told lies day after day. Every time we talked to the Garda we got lies, lies, lies.

We should not have had to go through all this for 30 years. It is a shame to think that a citizen of this State was treated in this way. We were treated very badly. One would think the Garda could tell us some truth rather than telling lies all the time. They could not even tell us when the inquest was on, which was 19 August 1976. They could not even get that right. They waited until the last minute before coming to my house — I was away working in Newry — to tell us that the inquest was being held. They say there was a mix up but how could there be a mix up with such an important inquest? There could not be a mix up.

That just shows how they were covering up everything all the time. No matter when we spoke to them all we heard was that it was the IRA. It might be said in different ways. Bad language was used at times but I will not repeat it on television. What they did to us was not fair.

Deputy Costello

Perhaps Deputy Peter Power and Deputy Murphy might enter into dialogue with Mrs. Sharkey on the matter.

Deputy P. Power

I thank Mrs. Sharkey for attending today. I join my colleagues in expressing our sympathy for the hurt and trauma which she and the wider family have gone through over the past 20 or 30 years. As a committee, we recognise her bravery in attending here, which is not the easiest of environments. We are used to it but it might not be as easy for Mrs. Sharkey. I thank her for attending.

That question might be directed elsewhere later.

I thank Mrs. Sharkey again from attending the sub-committee. Her contribution will form an important part of our report. It is important for us to understand the impact actions by certain gardaí had on individual citizens.

Chairman

I welcome Mrs. Eileen Fox, sister of Seamus, and thank her for coming.

Deputy F. McGrath

Does the family want an end to the fudging and messing around with the issue?

Mrs. Fox. Yes.

Deputy F. McGrath

Thank you.

Senator J. Walsh

I am trying to elicit the nature of the interviews and how the family has arrived at its strong feelings in that regard.

Chairman

There will be another opportunity later. We should conclude questioning Mrs. Fox now.

Senator J. Walsh

We will now deal with Michael Donegan who is a nephew of Seamus Ludlow. Michael Donegan is a son of Kevin Donegan, who, we know from the report, was questioned by the British in Northern Ireland and there was considerable toing and froing. I am very disappointed that we have still not been able to receive from the Northern Ireland authorities any information of any description regarding Mr. Donegan's interviewing, particularly considering that helicopter travel was involved. One would assume there would be information regarding the trips for helicopters. Even that information has been withheld and has not been forthcoming. I state our utter disappointment with the authorities in Northern Ireland for their non-co-operation with us. I hope I have not put Mr. Donegan out in any way.

Mr. Michael Donegan

Not at all.

Chairman

I ask him to tell us what he would like to say.

Mr. Donegan

I thank the committee for having us here. We welcome this opportunity to speak publicly for the first time. As the members will realise I come from Northern skies. I may have a different perspective on this matter. I had no contact with the Garda, although the Chairman mentioned my father, who did, over a period of months following the killing. He went to Dundalk and met several detectives. He just wanted to know what the score was — what was happening. He had, in his early life, been in the Defence Forces of this State for 14 years and basically believed that if he heard it from Garda then it must be true. He basically believed them.

They told him the IRA did it and not only that the IRA did it, but that it was a family affair. They told him that members of the family were involved in it. It was a set up. They set Uncle Seamus up. They told him that members of the family actually took part in the killing. As I said, he was a man who basically believed what he was told by the Garda, even though what they told him did not make sense. It caused all kinds of conflict in the house. We knew there was no way that man was killed by the IRA. There was just no way on God's earth that he was an informer. There was no way that any member of the family would ever be involved in such a thing. There is no question about it; the killing traumatised the family, turned us upside down. To a large extent it put our lives on hold for the next 30 years, which is why we are here today.

He met these gardaí over a number of months and they just kept putting it home to him: the IRA, the IRA, the IRA. He went to his grave with that belief: that it was the IRA, because of what they told him. There is no question that it caused a lot of conflict in my house. I am not going to try to avoid it now.

He also comes into the picture as the day after Uncle Seamus was buried, a party of British soldiers came to our house. We live in a place called Drumintee, just a few miles across the Border close to Forkhill Barracks. My father opened the door to them and they told him they were sent by the RUC to ask some questions of my mother, who was the sister of Seamus Ludlow. It was very strange, when I think about it, that they knew my mother was Seamus Ludlow's sister. Some of our neighbours did not know that; the British Army did. My father told them it had nothing to do with them, they were not police, this was not their jurisdiction and that they should go away. They insisted they were going to get the answers they were looking for. When eventually my mother came out to see what was going on, they started putting questions to her, such as why the IRA would do that to her brother as surely to God it would not do that for nothing. They suggested he must have been involved in something, must have been a bad man and deserved it. This went on for some time.

When they departed, my father got on a bicycle, cycled the two miles to Forkhill to take it up with the RUC, to make a complaint. When he got there, apparently there were no RUC officers available or if they were there they were not interested in him. He was then abducted, put aboard a British military helicopter and flown to Bessbrook where he was interrogated for over an hour by a military intelligence officer. He did not speak about it much, but he always said the one thing they wanted to know was what the Garda knew and was thinking, and what was its line of inquiry.

He was away from home for more than an hour. My mother became rather concerned because Forkhill is only a short distance away — about ten minutes on a bicycle, there and back — and he had not returned. She telephoned the barracks and was told they had never heard of him. She became very concerned and telephoned the local councillor. Like the good man that he was, he jumped in his car and drove straight to Forkhill. He was satisfied that my father was not there. At first, they would not tell him where my father was. Eventually, he got it out of them that my father was in Bessbrook. He then drove to Bessbrook to bring my father home.

We never really told the story to many people. I was amazed years later when I read Monsignor Murray's book, The SAS in Ireland, to find that the story was there. I do not know how he found out about it. I presume he got it from the late councillor I have mentioned because he did not get it from us. The family believed at the time that the British Army had some interest in and knowledge of this case. A murder in Dundalk should not have been any of its business. Really, it should not have been at our door asking questions about it. I firmly believe that they — the British Army — probably knew about this from day one. They were just trying to track what we knew and what the gardaí knew.

We have lived continually in the south Armagh area for all those years. I do not think there is anyone in the area who really believes that uncle Seamus was an informer, even though these rumours were out there. The rumours never went away. It would be wrong to assume that the rumours just came from the gardaí — they did not. I have with me copies of two books — two scurrilous publications — written about the SAS, both of which state as a fact that uncle Seamus was an informer who was murdered by the IRA. I presume that the source of that information is the British Army. Clearly, the rumour mill was North and South.

Ms Doyle

No.

Deputy F. McGrath

It is important that is made public, given that many people were given impression that those who murdered Seamus were on a drinking spree and that his murder happened only by accident. We need to go into all those questions. That seems to be the family's considered view as well.

Chairman

I thank Briege Doyle for her evidence. I know it has not been easy for her, but we appreciate her coming here to give evidence.

We will now hear from Mr. Jimmy Sharkey, who is a nephew of Seamus Ludlow. I welcome him to the meeting.

Mr. Jimmy Sharkey

I thank the sub-committee for inviting us here today. I also thank Mr. Justice Barron for compiling his report, although it has left us with many unanswered questions. We hope that some of those questions will be addressed today, but I must reiterate that the only proper forum in which those can be addressed is an independent public inquiry. That is our bottom line, nothing less and nothing more.

I will go back over what Kevin Ludlow and Eileen Fox said about the informer thing. The first time I ever heard about that was when Mr. Justice Barron told us about it at a meeting with him. I do not have a clue where that came from. It is stated on page 18 or 19 of the report that it came from a "source", but Mr. Justice Barron did not tell us who that source was.

Briege Doyle said she was questioned by the Garda Special Branch in the back of a car. I, too, was twice questioned in the back of a car by Special Branch officers. On the first occasion, they took a softly softly approach, as they tried to get to know what I knew and things like that. The second time, they took a more hardline approach when they asked me who I thought killed Seamus. They kept saying that it was the IRA, but I said I did not think it was the IRA. When I mentioned to them that I thought the SAS or a loyalist group killed him, one particular garda got very agitated about that. He kept pointing and gesturing to me in the back seat saying things like, "You know f-ing well who killed Seamus Ludlow. You tell us it was the IRA".

I did not get agitated about that because I knew what these guys were up to. Their whole persona and body language told me a different story. I was probably more streetwise than Briege Doyle, so I knew about being taken into a car with strange people. I knew what was happening in the north of Ireland at that time, with loyalist groups, the IRA and the SAS operating along the Border. However, that was the line of questioning from the gardaí. They did not want to hear anything about loyalist groups or the SAS; all they wanted to hear about was the IRA.

The reason for that, I believe, is that it suited the climate at the time. As the IRA was a threat to this State at that time, anything that the gardaí could use in their armoury to fight against the IRA had to be used. Here was a family, a member of which was killed, but the gardaí did not care about that — they had no interest in that whatsoever — as they were using it as a political means in the war against the IRA.

Of course, we lived in an area that was close to the Border — the nearest point to the Border was probably two miles away — and there was a lot of loyalist and republican activity on the Border at that time. Numerous killings took place. As this was six months after the bombing in Dundalk, security was high in the area.

Those people came down from Belfast that night. They did not come down to kill Seamus. I know who they came to kill. Mr. Justice Barron was very interested to know where I got that person's name. I would not tell him and have no intention of giving that name here today. I will give it when a proper forum is set up. I did not tell the Garda at the time who that person was.

The people involved would not have taken the chance of driving into a hotbed such as Dundalk town or even into County Louth. It would be like us going to the Shankill Road to kill someone. One has to know where one is going. These guys, two members of the British security forces, were in the town that night, in the car, heavily armed. As their target did not appear, they picked up Seamus. It could have been anyone, but they killed him.

As a member of the Ludlow family, I can accept that Seamus was a victim of the fall-out of the Troubles in the North, but I cannot accept the lies and deceit which the Garda has spun for 30 years and which it is still spinning. It has not even apologised. When I started all this, I was followed by gardaí. They asked me what I knew and so on. The Garda has a lot to hide.

When the journalist came to me with the information, he did not have a clue who killed Seamus. He was told by a Garda source that it was fellows from Comber-Dundonald direction. He did not believe that. He asked me who I thought killed Seamus, and I said I thought it was the SAS. He said this was wrong, that a Garda source had told him who it was, and that the Garda had known this for a long time, perhaps 20 years. The garda who gave the journalist that information was one of the gardaí who questioned me in the car.

I also met that garda in 1978 in the Derryhill Hotel in Dundalk where I was at a meeting. He recognised me in the hotel toilet and addressed me by name. I asked him how he was and he said he was okay. I said to him that I did not think he would know who I was. He said he did know and that in his job he had to know who I was. I said to him that if he knew who I was, could he tell me who killed Seamus Ludlow. He said I knew effing well who killed him and he then walked out the door.

Joe Tiernan told me that he thought it was loyalists from the Portadown area who killed Seamus and he gave me a list of names which I handed over to the Garda. I had the name of the driver of the car that night, but I did not hand it over. The committee should not ask me why, but I did not hand it over.

I will now fast-forward 20 years to when I met the head of the gardaí in Dublin who had charge of the case. I met him in the Ardboyne Hotel in Navan. I was on my own. He asked me about the case and told me that the names I passed on were not those of the people involved. I asked him if he knew the names of those involved. He said he did and that they were known for a long time. He was able to tell me the car those people were in that night, where they were seated in the car and the conversation that went on in the car that night. About three weeks later I met him again in the car park of the Garda station in Balbriggan. It was a cordial meeting and we certainly got to know each other. He said I might as well forget about it, since the names I had handed over were not the correct ones. That is what he said. It was around that time that I produced another name and handed it to him. His face went white. He asked me where I had got it but I would not tell him. Personally, I feel it was from then on that the case took off.

Deputy Costello

But that was in 1979.

Mr. Sharkey

I know, but I am going back to 1976.

Chairman

We do not want to apportion responsibility now. We want to stick to the policy issues, Deputy Costello.

Mr. Sharkey

With all due respect, I think that is what the feelings were in 1976. The information was gathered over a period. We had a meeting with the ombudsman in the North of Ireland. She told us there was intelligence information from early 1977. The question must be asked whether that was passed on to the Garda Síochána in Dundalk. I believe it was. It would have been passed on to certain gardaí and probably also to Garda Headquarters. However, the information was confined and only started to leak out after a while.

In early 1976 there was no full presentation by the Garda Síochána. Up to the present day, there is no trace of where his clothing went, where the bullets were sent and matters like that. The gardaí failed twice. They had chances to do their job in 1979 and 1998 but they did not do it. The only way we will ever know why they did not do so is through an independent inquiry.

Deputy Costello

Mr. Sharkey stated he withheld from Mr. Justice Barron the name of a person he thinks the assassins intended to assassinate. Has other information not been presented to Mr. Justice Barron? For example, the information that the ombudsman had further information about 1977, to which Mr. Sharkey referred, does not seem to have been available to Mr. Justice Barron. Are there other issues which Mr. Sharkey felt should be withheld because a public inquiry is the way to proceed, or for any other reason?

Mr. Sharkey

Chairman

I thank Mrs. Sharkey for her kind comments. The sub-committee wishes to thank the family for helping us in our hearings, in our examination of the Barron report as well as the whole question of the inquests and relatives being informed of them. The Dáil and Seanad have asked us to examine these matters and the family's contribution has been most helpful. It is a good starting point from which we can ask further questions of other relevant people. We are grateful to the family for attending the sub-committee today. While I do not know whether the family wishes to attend the hearings over the next few days, it can be arranged for those who wish to so do. Mr. Ray Treacy, the clerk to the committee, will organise it through the family's solicitor. Does Mr. McGuill wish to make any concluding comments?

Mr. McGuill

We will file further submissions dealing with some of the points raised by members. I will liaise with Mr. Mohan in respect of the names. We will provide the committee with some names now but will identify the appropriate unnamed portions and provide the committee with names that will be helpful to it when we read the transcript. I will do so through Mr. Mohan.

Chairman

The sub-committee will now suspend and resume at 2 p.m. to hear presentations from Justice for the Forgotten and British Irish Rights Watch.

Chairman

The sub-committee will hear from two groups this afternoon, Justice for the Forgotten and the British Irish Rights Watch. I welcome the representatives of Justice for the Forgotten, Ms Margaret Urwin, its director, and Mr. Cormac Ó Dúlacháin, counsel for Justice for the Forgotten. I thank them for forwarding their written submission and invite them to make an oral presentation.

Mr. Cormac Ó Dúlacháin

I thank the Chairman. On my own behalf and that of Ms Margaret Urwin and Justice for the Forgotten, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear at this hearing. There is a continuation of issues arising through the various Barron reports, including matters arising out of these reports relating to the murder of Seamus Ludlow, that raise issues of concern to the families of the Monaghan and Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973 and the victims of other atrocities.

Mr. Greg O'Neill may join us shortly. He has been detained on a visit to the McEntee inquiry, which was established on foot of a recommendation of this committee and will conclude its work in the next few weeks. If Mr. O'Neill walks in, it is a fact that he has been delayed and he hopes to be here.

Chairman

We appreciate that. I thank Mr. Ó Dúlacháin.

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin

In relation to our submission, I do not intend to repeat what was put in writing but I want to highlight a number of key points, the whole area in respect of the availability of files, the non-accounting for files, missing files, missing exhibits and material no longer recoverable. That is a common trend emerging in relation to all the atrocities during the 1970s that Mr. Justice Barron has been asked to investigate. It begs a question that has not been addressed or answered in the latest Barron report, that whether what is missing is the result of general maladministration over the years or is particular to these atrocities. From the Barron report, we are not able to assess whether the documents, exhibits and files that are missing are part of a larger number of exhibits or investigation files that are in turn missing or someone has selectively gone through the archives and moved material particular to these inquiries.

It appears that this is not a question that Mr. Justice Barron can ask because from the report it appears that in so far as a search for documents has been conducted, the actual physical and manual search has been entrusted to the authorities who have those documents. In other words, as far as we know, no member of the Barron team has physically entered the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the headquarters of the Garda Síochána or the technical bureau to try to establish exactly in what context these exhibits and files are missing.

Members may have questions in relation to the issues surrounding files. The most important issue for us arising out of the Ludlow report, aside from issues that are very particular, personal and close to the family of Seamus Ludlow, is one of great public concern that relates to the events of January and February, and early 1979. It relates to the circumstances in which information provided by the RUC to the Garda and invitations to interview suspects in Northern Ireland were not taken up.

The issue is broader than the investigation into the murder of Mr. Seamus Ludlow. The same matter arose in the report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings. Page 84 of that report refers to information received from CID:

On 12 January 1979, two Garda detectives from Dundalk had a meeting at Portadown RUC station with two CID officers. One of the latter said he had received information that Joseph Stewart Young, Samuel McCoo and James Somerville — all members of the Mid-Ulster UVF — were involved in the bomb attacks on Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk.

When we consider how the Garda Síochána responded to information about Mr. Ludlow that it received at the beginning of February 1979 and that information was also received on the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings, the question arises once more of pursuing suspects in Northern Ireland identified by the RUC. In circumstances not explained or not yet known but on its own initiative, the RUC volunteered information in the early months of 1979. In the case of Mr. Ludlow, the RUC had this information in 1977 and in respect of the Dundalk and Dublin-Monaghan bombings, it may have had the information as early as 1976. The same issue arises from two separate communications from the RUC. In so far as the committee is to consider this aspect of the Barron report, it may be opportune to revert to Mr. Justice Barron and view documentation on correspondence in January 1979 and internal memos concerning other inquiries.

The report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings states:

There was some further discussion in internal Garda documents concerning the desirability of interviewing the above-mentioned — particularly Somerville, who had not previously been interrogated in relation to any of the above bombings. There are references to further discussions taking place between the RUC and Garda officers concerned regarding the interviewing of the above-named suspects. One of the Garda officers wrote that "The RUC appear to be much more co-operative now than they were in 1975". However, it seems that no interviews took place.

The general issue of pursuing suspects in Northern Ireland was one that had to be addressed by the Garda Síochána at a policy level in early 1979. Reference has been made to general Garda policy, possibly dating back many years, of not interviewing in the North and not allowing the RUC to interview in the South. From inquiries conducted by Ms Margaret Urwin on behalf of Justice for the Forgotten, a number of instances have been identified in which gardaí travelled North or the RUC travelled South to conduct interviews in Garda stations. If there was a general Garda policy, it appears to have been subject to exceptions in certain cases. Nothing has emerged from documents in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or any Department indicating such a policy existed.

Last week, Ms Urwin, Mr. O'Neill and I paid a visit to the national archives in London to examine state papers of the United Kingdom. With the assistance of the Pat Finucane Centre, Ms Urwin spent the week in London examining hundreds of files. We have asked for, but not yet received, a printed copy of one document from which it emerges discussions took place at an official level in early September 1975 between officials of the Irish Government and those of the British Government in which this specific issue arose and in which references were made to policy considerations. To put this in context, on page 129 of the Barron report into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings it is stated:

A meeting was held in London on 11 September 1974, at which the British side comprised the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, The British Ambassador to Dublin, the Permanent Secretary to the Northern Ireland Office, and other senior civil servants. The Irish side comprised An Taoiseach, the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Irish Ambassador to London as well as senior civil servants of the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs."

That was the formal meeting which took place but it was preceded the previous week by a meeting solely involving civil servants. The British memo of that earlier meeting refers to observations of staff from the Irish Office of the Attorney General on the difficulties of conducting interviews in Irish police stations. We hope to be able to obtain a copy of the British minute of that civil service meeting during the next week or two.

It should be possible to trace minutes of a meeting between Irish and British civil servants in early September 1974, either in the files of the Office of the Attorney General here or in associated Government Departments, to investigate whether a briefing paper or note was prepared or to examine a minute of the meeting. It certainly appears that, outside of the Garda Síochána, at a formal policy level, decisions were made on whether, and to what extent, interviews should be allowed to be conducted in this State by the RUC.

An alarming issue raised in the Ludlow report is that the question of whether the matter was being pursued bounced back and forth between various Garda sections. Ordinary crime, C1, under Assistant Commissioner Fleming, was in pursuit of this issue by way of correspondence for a year, from April 1979 to March 1980. As a matter of routine it asked on a bimonthly basis what progress had been made and it received no report back. We know from the Ludlow report that Superintendent John Courtney had been Border superintendent until July 1979 and he returned to C4, the murder squad.

We know C3, the crime security section, which was the critical liaison with the Northern Ireland Special Branch and the RUC, is the first section with which the RUC communicated. The communication came from the Chief Constable's office directly into C3. Questions were raised as to whether notification that there were four suspects went straight to C3 and whether C3 was then involved in distributing that information. It is not as if it ended there with C3. The matter was returned to C3 in subsequent communications. The ordinary crime branch does not appear to have been aware of whether there was a policy that such suspects not be interviewed in Northern Ireland because it was still asking whether it would happen.

In his opening remarks Mr. Ó Dúlacháin referred to missing files, exhibits and many other things central to progress in this matter. If a public inquiry were to be put in place, does he think something would emerge that is not known at present?

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin

Our experience has been that information emerges the more formal an inquiry becomes. It will be interesting to learn from the report of Mr. MacEntee's commission of investigation if he has been able to recover documentation within the State that Mr. Justice Barron was neither able to identify nor obtain.

There are two elements to a public inquiry. Research is first undertaken for information that exists in the public domain and then that information is subjected to public scrutiny. Often in the course of that public scrutiny it becomes apparent that other documents have not yet appeared. For example, when we came before the joint committee to discuss the 1974 bombings, we were very critical of the then Fine Gael Government for effectively leaving the issue off the agenda from the end of 1974. The Sunday Business Post this Christmas, however, referred to further disclosures in British newspapers indicating that in April 1975, the then Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave, raised the matter with the British Government, a fact that did not emerge from a search of our own papers. It raises question of how thorough the search of departmental papers has been to date.

A formal inquiry, where people must swear on oath and where there are powers to trawl through departmental files and subject the findings to public scrutiny, is the only mechanism whereby we can at least guarantee to victims that all that could have been done was done. It is a public issue and concerns the public exercise of power. It is not related solely to the Garda, but to both how the Garda performs its functions and whether political decisions were made and whether they were justifiable.

Deputy P. Power

Deputy P. Power

What about the meetings at Baldonnel?

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin

Deputy Costello

Would the conclusion still not be the same if, as stated on page 79 of the Barron report, Garda practice was outlined in a directive which no doubt would have been the directive that the person in charge of C3 would have been expected to have in the absence of any other? Unless there was another directive in place, the procedure would have been for the commissioner of the C3 section to make the decision on their own bat without reference to a higher authority.

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin

Chairman

We will return to this matter in more detail next week. I thank the representatives——

Senator J. Walsh

I would like to make a brief point. We have the examples the representatives gave us of Patrick Livingstone and the Boyce and Porter situation where gardaí went North and members of the RUC came South. If the representatives have other examples of that happening in either direction, if would be helpful if they would tabulate them for us, particularly in regard to their discussions with gardaí.

In this report by Mr. Justice Barron there is recognition of co-operation and contact between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda in regard to many ongoing issues on a fairly regular basis. That seems to be at variance with what we were told in relation to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in that regard. Have the representatives any comments to make on that? It struck me as being significant. I wonder whether I am reading something into this that is not there or do the representatives consider there is something in that?

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin

Certainly the impression was given to us in regard to 1974 that a discreet distance was kept by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and that a very limited level of reporting was done to it. As we have looked at other incidents, it appears the reporting and exchange of information was far more regular, particularly in regard to events around or concerning the Border or Border security. There is a difference certainly in this report from the view given of the amount of information that was being communicated to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, although where that was recorded in the Department remains a mystery.

Mr. Greg O’Neill

I would like to add supplementary information concerning a matter. In minutes of the ministerial meetings between the British and Irish Governments of 11 September 1974, the then British Prime Minister informed the then Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave, that under custody interim orders the authorities in Northern Ireland had detained a number of individuals whom they suspected of having been involved in the bombings. That is referred to in the Barron report on the 1974 bombings but there appears to have been no follow up. From the documentation we have seen there does not appear to have been a reciprocal southern-based security response to that information.

Chairman

Thank you.

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin

I wish to make one final point. Issues arose at previous hearings in regard to whether cases could be brought to the European Court of Human Rights. Justice for the Forgotten was involved in two such recent cases arising in regard to 1974, and 1972 and 1973. As part of those complaints we raised issues relating to the non-co-operation with Mr. Justice Barron, the Oireachtas committee and inquests. Both cases did not proceed as the European Court held they were inadmissible. One aspect in particular it highlighted, and relied upon in structuring its judgment, was the fact that neither the Barron inquiry nor the Oireachtas committee hearings were effectively statutory inquiries. They were not inquiries being carried out in pursuit of a statutory function.

Chairman

I thank the representatives from Justice for the Forgotten for coming before the committee this afternoon. I am sure they will watch proceedings intently, as they have done previously, and we look forward to continuing to co-operate with them in the future.

I now welcome Ms Jane Winter, director of British Irish Rights Watch. Ms Winter has always co-operated with this committee and we are grateful to her for her submission. She came to Ireland especially for this meeting. I invite her to make her contribution.

Ms Jane Winter

It is always a great pleasure to be in Dublin. I am grateful to the sub-committee for allowing me to make the submission. I only intend to speak briefly so members can pursue whatever questions they have. British Irish Rights Watch is an independent, non-governmental organisation which has been monitoring the human rights dimension of the conflict and the peace process in Northern Ireland since 1990. I have been involved in the organisation since then.

It has been my misfortune to have had to study at close quarters the phenomenon of collusion which has, unfortunately, been a thread running throughout the conflict. It is also a thread that runs through the case of Seamus Ludlow. We have been advising his family since 1998 and we made a submission to Mr. Justice Barron in the course of his investigation.

We have three primary concerns about the murder of Seamus Ludlow, none of which has been fully satisfied by Mr. Justice Barron's report. The first and obvious concern is that nobody has been made amenable for his murder, although the identities of the alleged perpetrators have been known since at least 1977. Second, we are concerned that although the murder was ascribed to the loyalist paramilitary organisation, the Red Hand Commando, two of the alleged perpetrators, Fitzsimmons and Long, were both serving members of the Ulster Defence Regiment at the time. Clearly, that brings a large element of collusion into the murder.

Third, the murder seems to have been a serious cross-Border incursion but that does not appear to have been investigated or acted upon at the time. This, perhaps, feeds into some of the discussion that has just taken place about what policies were in place and what level of co-operation existed between the two jurisdictions.

It is our submission that the sub-committee should recommend a public inquiry under the 1921 Tribunals of Inquiry Act as the only way to get to the bottom of what happened to Seamus Ludlow. Although he worked hard and has produced a detailed report, Mr. Justice Barron had no powers to compel witnesses or the production of documents and he did not get many of the documents which he believed he needed. Seamus Ludlow's family had no opportunity, as they would have at a public inquiry, to scrutinise and challenge evidence that would be under consideration by such a tribunal. They did not have those opportunities in Mr. Justice Barron's investigation; they did not see what he saw and they were unable to comment on it or to ask him to ask for further documentation or further questions.

It is a matter of regret that Mr. Justice Barron was unable to answer some of the relevant questions pertaining to Seamus Ludlow's murder. He says he cannot explain the delay by the RUC between July 1977 and January 1979 in passing the names of the alleged perpetrators to the Garda Síochána. He was also unable to explain what he describes as a key question for his inquiry, namely, why, when the information was passed to the Garda Síochána by the RUC, it was not pursued. He also could not say who was responsible for making the decision not to pursue that information. I do not find his surmise particularly compelling, namely, that the reason was to prevent An Garda Síochána from being forced into a reciprocal relationship with the RUC. Whether one is convinced by it or not, it seems to me that it cannot possibly have been any sort of justification for denying justice to Seamus Ludlow. When somebody has been murdered he or she is entitled to an investigation in a democracy and, it seems to us, no consideration should stand in the way of that.

There are other matters that the judge could not explain. He was not able to say why Seamus Ludlow's family was not told about the information that was finally passed to the police. They had to find it out from a newspaper article many years later. He was not able to say why Kevin Ludlow was not informed about the inquest. He was not able to say why Kevin Donegan was forcibly abducted and questioned by the British army and questioned. Nor was he able to say what inquiries, if any, were made by the RUC about Fitzsimmons's car, which we believe was used in the attack.

Deputy F. McGrath

Ms Winter mentioned, in the section of her submission dealing with the Red Hand Commando — which, at the time, came under the umbrella of the UVF — that there was a strong link there between those two groups and the security forces in the North and that there was dual membership. Surely that has major implications, and is a major consideration, for people such as the Ludlows and for society in general.

Ms Winter

Indeed. We are finding, perhaps because we are moving further away from conflict and hopefully nearer to peace in Northern Ireland, that many loyalist families are coming to us and questioning the murders of their loved ones by other loyalists, whom they now believe may have been acting as informers for state agencies. This is an across the board problem. It goes very deep and affects many people.

Deputy F. McGrath

Ms Winter stated that no one in authority has ever given the family of Seamus Ludlow the credit they are due for having pursued the failure of the police investigation. In effect, she is saying that the determination, guts and vision of the Ludlow family have seen matters reach the point at which they currently stand, namely, these hearings. Does Ms Winter agree that it is not acceptable that citizens of any state should have to undergo a nightmare of that kind? What are the broader implications for other citizens?

Ms Winter

I agree with the Deputy that it is not acceptable. The European Court stated strongly, in the cases of Jordan and others in 2001, that families should not be obliged to instigate a proper investigation when somebody is murdered and that it is absolutely the duty of the state to ensure that, in each and every case, there is a proper investigation.

With regard to the historical inquiries team, it is unfortunate that I attend this committee today and that one on Thursday, because I might have more to tell this committee after Thursday's meeting. I have had a brief discussion with the team about the issue of murders that originated in the North but were carried out in the South and about how far its remit extends. Originally, they told me they did not think they had any remit with regard to murders carried out in the Republic but they are changing their thinking and now say they can investigate any part of it that took place in Northern Ireland. Therefore, they can look at the planning of a murder and the manufacturing of a bomb or at the origin of a weapon etc. I think they may well be able to provide some information on the murder of Seamus Ludlow and I understand they would certainly be willing to do so if asked.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses very much. I thank Ms Winter for coming over to Dublin and I hope she catches her flight back. I am also very grateful to the witnesses from Justice for the Forgotten for their continued co-operation.

The sub-committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 January 2006.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS (Sub-Committee on the Barron Report) debate - Tuesday, 24 Jan 2006

Public Hearings on the Barron Report.

Mr. James McGuill

Mr. Kevin Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mr. K. Ludlow

Mrs. Nan Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mrs. Sharkey

Mr. Brendan Ludlow

Mr. B. Ludlow

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS (Sub-Committee on the Barron Report) debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jan 2006