: Latest News

Perpetrators of terrorist atrocities, who have injured, maimed and murdered innocent people could hardly dream of a better status under the law, as to be put on an equal footing with their victims.

Hence, the deep concern following the recently publicised NIO proposals analysis of the 17,000 responses that were received as a result of the consultation on ‘Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past’, which ended on October 5 last.

Among the many issues raised by respondents, two are of particular unease to the Ulster Human Rights Watch (UHRW) Advocacy Service and other victims and survivors groups: the definition of a victim and the unfairness of the proposed institutions, particularly the Historical Investigation Unit (HIU), towards former members of the police and armed forces.

The present Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 ‘interpretation’ of a victim and survivor is all the more unacceptable as it runs contrary to the EU Directive 2012 (2012/29/EU) that obliges the United Kingdom to bring its own legislation into compliance with it.

The EU Directive provides a ‘definition’ of a ‘victim of crime’, namely ‘a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence’.

The definition, which also applies to victims of terrorism but excludes perpetrators, has been implemented in Northern Ireland by the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (Section 29).

However, surprisingly, the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 has not been revised to keep in step with the Justice Act and consequently appears to be in breach of the EU Directive definition.

This issue must be urgently addressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a matter of priority. A review of the Order 2006 providing a definition of a victim of crime, including a victim of terrorism, that is compliant with the EU Directive, in the opinion of the Ulster Human Rights Watch (UHRW), would dispel immediately the confusion that has been maintained for so long between genuine victims and perpetrators.

It would also enable significant progress to be made in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.

This equivalence between perpetrators and their victims in the Order 2006 is echoed in the proposed Stormont House Agreement institutions by a parity of treatment between terrorists and members of the security forces.

The distrust expressed by many consultation respondents comes as a result of the Historical Investigation Unit (HIU) proposals being undoubtedly biased against former members of the security forces and most particularly against police officers. Inevitability, as a result, there will be an increase in one-sided investigations against the security forces who keep records of their actions which can be accessed and used against them in contrast with the terrorists who don’t keep formal records and destroy incriminating evidence.

The position of former members of the security forces will be made even worse since the HIU will have the power to carry out, not only criminal investigations, but also non-criminal police misconduct investigations.

This will be patently both unfair and degrading for police officers who may be investigated twice by the same body, while terrorists can only be investigated once for criminal activities.

Consequently those who committed themselves to protecting the community against terrorism and have long since retired may be hauled back into the spotlight to be investigated by the HIU, causing great stress and trauma to both them and their families.

Such investigations will, without doubt, generate stories that will disproportionately draw attention to the actions of the security forces while leaving in oblivion the atrocities carried out by terrorist organisations.

Security forces will have limited means of defending themselves against untrue or biased stories being told against them.

In addition their position will be further aggravated by narratives that will emerge from the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR) and the Oral History Archive (OHA), which are tailor made, intentionally or not, for terrorists to tell their stories, while protected from any form of prosecution.

There is little doubt that terrorists and their sympathisers will use the opportunity provided by these three proposed bodies, the HIU, the ICIR and the OHA to blacken the reputation of the security forces, justify their engagement in terrorist activities and glorify terrorism with a view to rewriting the history of Northern Ireland.

They will be assisted in doing so, perhaps unwittingly, by the Implementation and Reconciliation Group (IRG) whose mandate will be to prepare the ground for a final report, based on summary reports of these bodies, and to be delivered by academics after a period of five years.

The Ulster Human Rights Watch (UHRW) strongly believes that dealing with the legacy of the past requires a completely new approach, with the clear three-fold objectives of upholding the rights of victims of terrorism, respecting former members of the security forces and strengthening the hand of the State in the fight against terrorism.

Click here to view published article

At least not until we get in the legislation absolute certainty, clarity and transparency around the introduction of a pension for victims and survivors of the terrorist campaign that has blighted a generation.

We have seen the headlines, the government assurances given on the floor of the House of Commons as well as the apparent relief that followed. Northern Ireland Office Minister, John Penrose MP, said that while it was right and proper to provide a pension for victims of Troubles-related terrorist incidents, “this should not become a pension for terrorists.”

And for good measure, in a further most welcome contribution, Mr Penrose stated that “there is no moral equivalence between a bystander badly injured in a terrorist explosion through no fault of their own, and the people who manufactured the bomb, placed the bomb and detonated the bomb.”

Why, therefore, is the Ulster Human Rights Watch Advocacy Service not satisfied with what on the face of it, at least, is an unambiguous Parliamentary statement? What has changed since the unfortunate and ill-advised recommendation by the Victims’ Commissioner who refused to close the door to terrorists qualifying for pensions?

Pension parity between victims and the perpetrators of scores of murders, bomb attacks, so-called punishment shootings and beatings, abductions and untold economic damage inflicted on Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be an outrage and an insult. The Urgent Question tabled by the DUP’s Emma Little-Pengelly extracted from the Minister a reply that was required – but only as a first step.

So far, so good or so it would appear.

It’s only when you delve into the detail of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, the legislative instrument, that you find a dearth of detail and certainly nothing that matches the weighty and welcome Ministerial words of Mr Penrose.

In fact, the legislation offers no guarantees whatsoever that terrorists will be denied a pension. The devil is in the detail, specifically Section 3(11) and Section 6.

According to Section 3 (11), the Secretary of State must publish a report before 4 September ‘on progress towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors of Troubles-related incidents.’ This is in line with the ‘interpretation’ of victim and survivor in Article 3 of the Order 2006 – an ‘interpretation’ which clearly and intentionally equates the perpetrator with the innocent victim.

Interestingly, Section 3 (14) provides that the Secretary of State must also publish a report before the 4 September ‘on whether the definition of “victim” in Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 should be revised to apply only to a person who is injured or affected wholly through the actions of another person’. A report is one thing, but there is no mention here of progress towards legislation for a ‘new definition of a victim’.

The likely outcome is that on 4 September we will have proposed legislation for a pension and only an opinion as to whether or not the definition of ‘victim’ should be changed. As long as the definition of victim is not changed, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from getting the pension whatever Ministers may be saying along the way.

In the Ulster Human Rights Watch’s view, this is a very dangerous, if not a deceitful, omission. There is a definite requirement for nothing less than watertight legislation to prevent perpetrators from benefiting financially. Bad enough that terrorists of whatever hue should cause such heartache and pain, but it would be an act of unspeakable callousness and a double injustice to victims and survivors if they were to gain in any way from their barbarity.

For these reasons, the Ulster Human Rights Watch Advocacy Service advises against any premature celebration and instead urges all victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to continue to be vigilant. We welcome the encouraging words at Westminster, but much work remains to be done before 4 September so that the report on the pension for victims will result in the necessary legislation being proposed and enacted, which protects victims of terrorism and does not reward the perpetrators – anything less is not acceptable.

Click here to view published article

There is something seriously wrong when a suggested remedy on Northern Ireland’s troubled past causes those in greatest need of help to be re-traumatised and hurt.

Hundreds of good people, some grappling with daily anguish and intolerable pain, have been left financially high and dry because of an inability to sort out and or acknowledge the true meaning of the term ‘victims and survivors’.

Ulster Human Rights Watch (UHRW), (a registered charity with the remit of helping innocent victims of the thirty plus years terrorist campaign), believes that a person who was shot, maimed or psychologically scarred by the actions of the gunman or bomber, from whatever side, should qualify for a victim’s or survivor’s pension.

In contrast it also asserts that those who planted the bomb or pulled the trigger do not deserve to be rewarded with State funds for attempting to murder and cause mayhem – they are not victims or survivors. The very people who perpetrated countless acts of savagery deserve nothing. In fact, the bomber whose bomb prematurely detonated, causing permanent disability to himself, should not have any expectation of any State ‘reward’ whatsoever.

This is a matter of what’s right and wrong. And, simply, it’s wrong to include the terrorists in the same category as the people they set out to hurt or kill. The Ulster Human Rights Watch believes that political expediency should form no part of deciding who qualifies for a pension.

The dangers of placating and rewarding paramilitary criminals and giving them equivalence with victims and survivors is an anathema, indeed it is an appalling injustice. All it would succeed in doing would be to cause additional unnecessary suffering and make those innocents who bore the brunt of a monstrous murder campaign suffer further enormous distress and a sense of worthlessness.

There is no other civilised country in the world where terrorists are rewarded for their actions. Why should the UK, and specifically Northern Ireland, decide it can be out of step with international norms by essentially saying the terrorist gunman, wounded during an engagement with the security forces, is now on a par with the soldier or police officer left with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or a life-changing physical injury?

Lives scarred by terrorism should not have to be re-traumatised in this manner. Any objective assessment will see that turning natural justice on its head in such a hurtful and disrespectful manner is counter-productive and a denial of the truth. The recent revised advice, offered to the Secretary of State by the Victims Commissioner, lacks decency, sensitivity, empathy and respect for real victims of terrorism.

It should and must be rejected by the Government.

Click here to view published article