Oral evidence: Administrative scheme for ‘on-the-runs’, HC 177Wednesday 18 June 2014
Oral evidence, 18 June 2014.
Witness
Christopher Daly, representing the Hyde Park families, gave evidence.
Chair
Mr Daly, can I apologise for the length of time you have been kept waiting? I think that you saw the previous session, so perhaps you understand why it took so long. Thank you very much for joining us. Perhaps you would like to introduce yourself and tell us why you’re here, and we’ll go from there.
Christopher Daly
Thank you, Mr Chairman. If you allow me, I have a short statement. Thank you very much Mr Chairman and Members for the opportunity to allow me to give evidence as a representative of the families of the victims of the Hyde Park bombing. I was 18 at the time when my brother was killed and, prior to the arrest of John Downey in May 2013, neither I nor any of the families of those killed on that tragic day were even aware that anybody was wanted in connection with the Hyde Park bombing. Justice Sweeney’s judgment in February 2014 gave a clear summary of the facts as they had been presented to him. The fact is that Downey was in possession of a letter of assurance from the state under the OTR administration scheme, that such a letter had been issued in error and, that once this error was known, no corrective action was taken. Downey was relying on the assurance of this letter when he entered the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and hence it is my interpretation that any trial would have been regarded as an abuse of process. The sequence of events leading up to the mistake of this letter of assurance being issued has been touched on through previous evidence hearings to this Committee, as well as the reasons as to the failure to correct this mistake. This whole episode has left the families feeling devastatingly let down. The mistakes that were made have left a feeling of breach of trust, owing to the fact that it was professionals in positions of authority who made these mistakes and who have effectively cheated us, the families, from seeing this previously wanted man having to face justice in court. Finally, I have been asked by the families to highlight the degree of suffering that has been experienced by all the victims of this tragic event, and even more so the children of those concerned, who are still suffering deep trauma to this day. I am sure this is in keeping with all victims of terrorist atrocities. It is for this reason that we feel so strongly that people must be held to account, lessons must be learnt, justice be pursued and no amnesty must ever be granted. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Chair
Thank you very much for joining us. It is not all that long ago that the whole issue came out. It was the end of February. You may or may not have had time to seek legal advice or any other advice about where you should go from here, but have you taken any such advice?
Christopher Daly
We have had face-to-face meetings with the Attorney-General and obviously, the stay being put on this case relates to the fact that, in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, this case is probably a dead-end element. We have also had presentations by the Metropolitan police indicating the level of evidence that was available at that time.
Chair
What would you want a Committee such as this to do?
Christopher Daly
I think to understand how this error took place. In reviewing some of the transcripts, it appears—as we heard previously—that the Northern Ireland Office were curious and were checking the validity of this letter. When the administrative scheme was first set up, there were seven check points to be done, and I think that gave that process a degree of integrity. However, under the terms of reference of Operation Rapid, as in Justice Sweeney’s statement, it says that even the checks at Interpol were not being carried out, and it was highlighted to them that the checks on the police national computer were 50% flawed. It seems that in a desire to try to speed things up, corners were being cut. The Operation Rapid team and Detective Chief Superintendent Baxter knew that Downey was well known. Kate, you mentioned that he was known in 2006 as being wanted. In fact, in May 2007—two months prior to the issuing of this letter—the Operation Rapid team knew that he was wanted; however, the Northern Ireland Office checked with Peter Sheridan’s team whether he was wanted by the PNC, and they were unaware of the situation. So I think some internal communication issues may be at stake.
Chair
Then you will have heard Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris say a while ago that they have intelligence linking 95 people who received letters to almost 300 murders. That must really annoy you.
Christopher Daly
Having served with the Royal Irish Regiment in Armagh, I am aware of the complexities of Northern Ireland and the situation—the historical nature of it all. I have met Drew Harris, as have the other families, and I have every confidence that he will go through the situations relating to those other cases with a fine-toothed comb. Unfortunately for ourselves and the Downey case, that has arrived too late. Yes, mistakes happen but the fact is that the Historical Enquiries Team flagged up that Downey was still wanted but they had given the Northern Ireland Office element that he was not wanted by the Met. That new information was not passed up the chain. Make a mistake, yes; but to not correct it on two occasions is when the anger really wells up and that is when you feel let down.
Chair
What is your impression of the whole scheme? Was it as necessary as is being claimed?
Christopher Daly
I think, in conflict resolution, it was meant to be a statement of fact at that moment in time. If somebody was not wanted, then they were told they would not be wanted. If those seven checks had been carried out—one got the impression from earlier evidence that you could probably ask the same question under data protection, asking for a submission of evidence. No one wants to go back to the days when the IRA were still following their campaign of violence. The scheme, in itself, if the checks had been thoroughly carried through, meant that a mistake, as with Downey, would never have happened and should never have happened.
Ian Paisley
Christopher, I have said to you in private, and I will say to you in public, that it is a huge honour to be in the same room as you, because of what you represent and the way in which you are putting forward your case on behalf of victims. I think it is important that you know that. Can I ask you whether the secretive nature of the on-the-run scheme concerns you?
Christopher Daly
Yes. You cannot get away from transparency, especially in conflict resolution. I appreciate that there are immense sensitivities in relation to the issues at stake, and that you have two opposing sides who are very difficult to get in the room at the same time. Ultimately, you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them; in other words, the politicians will negotiate the peace. With the Good Friday Agreement—this was mentioned earlier—the peace process continued, despite the lack of knowledge of the scheme. Of course, as to the perceived biased nature—the fact that all these letters are to republican OTRs—the nature of the situation was that a lot of loyalist people who may have been in a situation of receiving similar letters of assurance had either been arrested or had fled to Scotland, where they were, again, arrested. May I just touch on the fact that I do not necessarily agree with the fact that because Downey lived in Ireland, he was not necessarily on the run? This man was on the run from the law; he was not on the run from his home address.
Ian Paisley
Last week, Sinn Fein refused to give evidence to this Committee, as you will be aware. Would it help you to have that evidence in public? They are telling us they have given it in private to Lady Hallett and that there is no purpose served in giving it again, but would it help you, as a victim, to see the colour of their money in public?
Christopher Daly
I have seen the letter that the Chairman has written to Sinn Fein, and I totally applaud the content of that letter. As to, dare I say it, the game-playing of this whole scenario, I think this is not a game at all—it is incredibly serious—and I do not want to add fuel to this scenario. The campaign of violence is over. If you want to be taken seriously as a political player in the peace process of a democracy, you should be totally up front. We have also met with Lady Justice Hallett. Again, if they are willing to speak to her, and not to the Committee, I don’t understand it, to be honest. I’ll leave it at that: I don’t understand that position.
Chair
I think the problem we have with that is that it reinforces the secretive nature of the scheme.
Christopher Daly
And also some of the evidence says that Sinn Fein requested the whole scheme to be done secretively. I am aware of previous evidence—is it sensitive or secret? As Sir Hugh Orde said—even Sir Ronnie Flanagan said this—he would have no qualms, if somebody asked him, “Can you just check whether I’m wanted or not?”, about telling them if they are not wanted. If he is wanted, and he comes, you can arrest him. That is why, now that peace has been secured, these sensitive issues should really be properly addressed in transparency.
Kate Hoey
Thank you, Mr Daly. We have all been incredibly impressed by the evidence we have received from all the victims, and we thank you for being here. I just want to ask whether you have seen some of the evidence that there was against Mr Downey?
Christopher Daly
Absolutely.
Kate Hoey
And in your view, if the evidence you have seen was to be presented in a court now, is it pretty likely that Mr Downey would be found guilty?
Christopher Daly
That is a very difficult question, Kate. I am not a lawyer or a solicitor. Obviously, the jury would need to be convinced. The evidence suggested that Downey was involved. He was in the area at the time. There is the car that he parked—the fingerprint evidence was mentioned in previous evidence. He knew what was happening. He knows what he did, and when he received the letter of assurance, he was probably as surprised as anybody else. Was there enough evidence? That would be for a court to determine.
Kate Hoey
But there is certainly enough evidence for a trial.
Christopher Daly
In my layman’s view, yes.
Kate Hoey
What does that tell us about the British justice system at the moment? Everybody knows Mr Downey should at the very least be put on trial, yet because of some fluke or mistake—hopefully, this Committee will find out exactly how that happened—that is not going to happen.
Christopher Daly
As in Lord Goldsmith, it is about the integrity of the prosecution process. He got a platinum gilt-edged letter from the state telling him that he is not wanted. No one is going to divulge more than is necessary, so if the state tells him he is not wanted—
Kate Hoey
Yes, but the letter to all of them more or less said, “If we get evidence about you, it means nothing.” Now, there is evidence, and whether it is new or not should not make any difference.
Christopher Daly
The trouble is, that letter was issued when the state knew he was wanted elsewhere. The importance of the letter, if it was issued in error, is that a simple statement of fact suddenly takes on a whole different purpose, because the letter was effectively issued by the state to say that he is not wanted. The fact is that the stay has been put on the case. In preparation for the case, I’m sure every single piece of evidence that was available would have been prepared.
Kate Hoey
Were you surprised that Dominic Grieve didn’t appeal?
Christopher Daly
I was disappointed. I can’t tell you how up-front and transparent the various agencies have been in talking to the families. We met Dominic Grieve and he explained that the basis on which the abuse of process was concluded was not going to be changed even if they went to appeal, so the chance of winning an appeal was very slight.
Kate Hoey
So the justice system has actually managed a process where justice is not going to be done.
Christopher Daly
Correct—or not seen to be done. I am not used to these scenarios, but these situations are for courts. This is when we need to believe totally in the integrity of our justice system. That is why it would be nice to have the opportunity to at least get Downey into a court, and let the justice system run its course.
Lady Hermon
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Daly, for coming and being so patient. I’m sorry you had to wait for so long. You heard the evidence from the former Secretary of State, who said he was not in post at the time the letter was issued. Can I ask you to be frank in your assessment of the evidence that was given to us earlier this afternoon?
Christopher Daly
Interesting. The irony is that the letter was issued on the 25th anniversary of the explosion.
Lady Hermon
How awful.
Christopher Daly
I know. Fate has a funny way of doing things. I don’t understand why there wasn’t reference to these letters in the written responses to questions. I don’t believe that a clear explanation was given of that.
Lady Hermon
By Mr Hain?
Christopher Daly
Correct.
Lady Hermon
In the Downey judgment, we see that there was correspondence from Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, to the Prime Minister, in which he asked for an invisible process, and that is what he got. Mr Hain didn’t put that on the record, but I think that is what we are looking at.
Christopher Daly
And in conflict resolution, it needs to be fair-handed. Unfortunately, it seems, again and again, to be leaning to one side. Obviously, we have been in a peaceful situation for seven years—well, in theory; I know a lot is happening on the ground when you go over there. What the price of maintaining that peace is, I don’t know.
Lady Hermon
The peace process has continued. We did have the Rev. Ian Paisley as First Minister with Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister in the spring of 2007—seven months before Mr Downey got his letter. It was a happy working relationship, so much so that, unfortunately for both of them, they were labelled “the chuckle brothers”, because they, at a huge surprise, enjoyed each other’s company. So the peace process was actually safe in 2007. That brings me to the next question. As a group, I am sure that you have discussed the fact that the coalition Government continued with OTR letters after they came to power in 2010. Could you just summarise the reaction of yourself or others? Were you surprised by that? Has it made you feel jaundiced about politicians and Governments? I am sure it has changed your impression.
Christopher Daly
But it seems not only were the public kept in the dark about these letters; even the police themselves, and even people heavily involved in this process, seemed to be totally unaware of these letters. The fact that I gather is, speaking to representatives of the PSNI—we have met Drew Harris—who said that there was still about six cases left to go through, they have now said, “No, definitely, that’s it. The scheme is now stopped”, as it should be, I think. It is bizarre, this process. I am not too sure whether the pressure behind the scenes is to keep that process going.
Lady Hermon
You are not sure that there was pressure?
Christopher Daly
Possibly, yes. Ultimately, even at the stage of devolution, there were only 38 names. How much time does it take to check 38 names? But then, if Downey was one of those names, and when Operation Rapid seems to have its own set of terms of reference[4], that is how this mistake happened. The fact that the letters were still being checked upon, I presume, was at the request of one of the parties to the peace process.
Lady Hermon
While, obviously, it is not going to help the victims and families of the Hyde Park bombing, does it give you some sense of reassurance? I was pleased that you said that you had every confidence in ACC Harris to go through—I think “with a fine toothcomb” is what you said—all the other 227 OTR letters. Has that given you some sense of reassurance that this ghastly, awful mistake—it has been a terrible mistake, with huge consequences for so many families—is not going to be repeated? Has that been at all helpful?
Christopher Daly
In meeting the individuals involved, who are now responsible for doing this thorough checking; meeting, even you, hearing the questions here; and also meeting Lady Justice Hallett and all the agencies involved, you feel that they are appalled at this situation. I think that gives me confidence. Ultimately, there is a feeling of breach of trust. This mistake should never have happened. There were distinct safeguards to stop such a situation from happening. But then, when it did happen and for it not to be corrected, that is what is so irritating. We are all professionals in our own right, and for it to be known to be wrong, and not to be corrected, someone needs to be held to account. They are probably well retired, but it needs to make sure that this never happens again.
Oliver Colvile
First, Mr Daly, can I thank you very much for coming to see us? Can I also pay tribute to you for your time which you served in the armed forces and all the hard work and efforts that you and, most certainly, your brother, put in at the time when, unfortunately, he was killed in such very bad circumstances? I represent a naval garrison city down in Plymouth, with a large number of Royal Marines and some members of the Royal Navy who have served in Northern Ireland trying to do things. Mr Downey cannot have been operating by himself. Has there been any kind of discussion with you about the other people who might have been involved in this ghastly, horrific murder? I mean those words seriously. Has any discussion taken place with you about who else might have been involved and whether they might have received similar kinds of letters as well?
Christopher Daly
All the information has just been focused on John Downey himself, because that is what the case was.
Oliver Colvile
I quite understand that, but there will be other people as well, as I say, who were involved in that campaign; I have no doubt about that. It is important that we get an assurance as to whether or not people were given similar kinds of letters. You are talking to the authorities. Can I encourage you to go and do that?
Christopher Daly
I am sure Drew Harris will also be on the hunt as well.
Lady Hermon
The Committee will obviously make recommendations when they have heard all of the evidence from the witnesses that we still have to interview, and there is quite a long list, as you can imagine: Northern Ireland Office officials; past and retired Attorney-Generals—so there are quite a number of witnesses to go through. When we come to our conclusions and recommendations, I am sure you have had time to think what you would like us as a Committee to put into our Report. As a group, or in conversation with other family members, have you had some thoughts, formalised some thoughts, about what you would like the Committee to include with the recommendations?
Christopher Daly
I think, primarily, it is the sharing of information within the police forces—even the Metropolitan police and the PSNI. The fact that Tony Sheridan was unaware—
Lady Hermon
Peter, I think he was called.
Christopher Daly
I’m sorry, yes—Peter Sheridan was unaware what Baxter knew, and they were virtually in the same team. I think Baxter was using the Policing Act 2008 to say “You can’t share any information about anything to anybody.” All policemen are on the same side, really, I think, and there should be more open sharing. Apart from that, I think it is good—the fact that this scheme has been brought to a halt. The fact that in future—I do not want to predict conflict, and it is difficult to give any further recommendation.
Lady Hermon
I did not want to prompt you; but in my heart of hearts I just want to see these letters rescinded, personally. I just want to see them annulled, all of them. I know that cannot undo the harm and the pain, and the reworking of all that grief, but I think there just has to be a line drawn to re-establish confidence in the rule of law—that we are all equal before the law, and certainly there was a group of people who were friends with Gerry Adams who were apparently above the law, and despite what Peter Hain told us it was not a normal criminal justice process that applied to them. As I said, I did not want to prompt you, but would you be in agreement that having the letters withdrawn, annulled or rescinded would be helpful?
Christopher Daly
The letters are simply telling people that they are not wanted, so I am not sure what benefit would come from rescinding those letters. The fact is: can there be a 100% guarantee that the letters that were sent are based on the seven safety checks to confirm that this person is not wanted, so therefore there is a gold-plated guarantee of the fact that they are not wanted at that time? The letters do say if any fresh evidence—and this is when, hopefully, if there is any fresh evidence there is every reason that the letter becomes null and void, obviously, in accord; then the long arm of the law should seek those people out and prosecute them.
Naomi Long
First of all, can I say thank you for coming and giving evidence to the Committee. I just have one question. Because this particular incident took place in GB rather than in Northern Ireland you do not have access to the Historical Enquiries Team investigations that would happen had the same incident happened in Northern Ireland. Were you at all surprised—you have talked about the communication between different parts of the police service, and so on—that given that there was case review, live, going on through the HET scheme, these cases were being handled separately and independently of that system and that there was no cross-communication between the two investigations?
Christopher Daly
I think it highlights the point of the internal communications, but also the fact that the Historical Enquiries Team—my understanding is that they were investigating unsolved murders, particularly in Northern Ireland. This is how Downey’s name, again, cropped up, and again they highlight the fact that he is wanted and the fact that they are aware that Baxter had informed the ACC crime ops that it was not odd. Therefore the area was flagged up by the Historical Enquiries Team; yet no action was taken. I am aware that Baxter was unaware what this information was used for, or with Sheridan—what he briefed up to the Northern Ireland Office was based on just PSNI elements. He had answered yes to the question, “Is he wanted?” or “Has the PNC been checked?” It was then flagged up in 2008 and 2009 by the Historical Enquiries Team. That confirmation was wrong. That was when the correction should have been made. This is where the two areas seem to be at fault. Why wasn’t that correction flagged up to the Northern Ireland Office—that the information flushed out by the Historical Enquiries Team was wrong?
Naomi Long
We have established that the letters seem to be key to this. First of all, the PSNI were not aware that letters were being issued. Indeed, it wasn’t brought to the attention of Members of Parliament who asked questions about this matter that letters were being issued. Would you agree that, had the process itself been more transparent to all of those involved in each stage—if those who were passing on the names knew that they would go to the police and if the police knew that they would do certain checks and it would then go back and that letters would be produced. The chances that someone would have thought there was a need to inform the Northern Ireland Office would have increased had the police known at that time that a letter had been issued, which they didn’t.
Christopher Daly
The police, the Policing Board, everybody—if the letter was just a pure statement of fact at that moment in time then why wasn’t it known? When the warrant office rings up ACC Sheridan’s staff officer and asks three times, “Is he wanted?”: well, why do you want to know? What is the purpose? By not knowing that purpose you cannot close the loop and you introduce that element of error. You are absolutely right. These letters are sensitive: they were all given—I think one went to a loyalist and the rest to republicans, as far as I am aware. The fact is that the nature of the issue that these letters are trying to address was the fact that most republicans went over the border to escape whereas most loyalists stayed within the UK jurisdiction and were picked up. So the whole concept of on-the-runs didn’t really affect the loyalist community as much as it affected the republican. You cannot say that it has to be 50:50 letters because the people who are on the run were all republicans.
Naomi Long
There were two elements to the process. The lack of transparency has obviously affected the communication as well. There wasn’t a clear process—it was never documented in any way that would have allowed anyone who participated in, say, the entirety of it. The other issue is the secrecy in terms of the public’s knowledge of the scheme being in place. You were asked earlier and we asked some of the victims’ organisations who gave evidence to us last week about that. Had you been aware of the administrative scheme, had it been done openly and transparently, would you have felt that it was a reasonable thing to do or would you have objected to the scheme? Or was the secrecy and the fact that this was done in secret, behind closed doors and without the knowledge of families the thing that has pained people most?
Christopher Daly
That slightly links back to the fact that as the families, we were totally unaware that anybody was even wanted. The concept of trying to identify people who have caused these atrocities and the fact that investigations are taking place into these unsolved murders—I think the families should be made aware. In liaising with the Metropolitan Police, the family liaison officer has been keeping us in the loop about what has been happening. I see no reason why other victims could not have been made aware that an investigation was taking place. Obviously, it would not name people because there isn’t evidence. Under the administrative scheme you can say, “This incident happened. Your loved ones were killed at that incident. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to try and link anybody to that event and that is why this letter is being issued to these people.” But there needs to be a degree of transparency. We should bear in mind that the bigger goal was to have a complete conflict resolution in Northern Ireland. Has that been achieved? To a large degree, yes. Of course, I want whoever caused these atrocities to be held to account. The trouble is you can only apply the long arm of the law and use the justice system in this country if there is evidence to bring them to court.
Lady Hermon
You really want the truth of how this mistake came about. I just wondered whether you had in fact sought to meet with Mr Norman Baxter, who is retired from the PSNI, and also retired ACC Peter Sheridan? In my experience, I can only say that I have always regarded them as very honourable, straight and open people. I am not volunteering or speaking on their behalf; I am just wondering if you have sought a meeting, or if it would be helpful. Maybe it would not be helpful; I just don’t know.
Christopher Daly
My lay interpretation of reading the situation is simply the fact that it was such an easy mistake. All of us spoke to Peter Sheridan’s office, who were unaware. Baxter was aware, but he didn’t tell Sheridan. That is the crux of the situation; that is how the letter gets issued in the first place. But then of course, I think there was not an awareness of what this review of these cases was being used for. Therefore, how can you fix a letter that you are not aware has been sent out? Those who knew, knew and those who didn’t know, didn’t know. That is what is so irritating. When everyone is working together towards a peace settlement, all agencies should be trying to take that brave step forward. It does require complete transparency and trust between the agencies. But I am also aware of the unique character of Northern Ireland. The historical elements and the tragedies that people have suffered make them very suspicious.
Lady Hermon
I know that in evidence to us as a Committee, both Mr Baxter and Mr Sheridan were deeply critical of the fact that at no stage were they called to give evidence to the court to account or explain. That, of course, would have been helpful for them. All I am leaving you with is a suggestion. If you have the opportunity, I do not expect that either gentleman would decline the opportunity to meet with you and talk to you face to face. If that would be helpful, I am sure they would be willing to do that.
Chair
Mr Daly, thank you very much for coming. Again, apologies for keeping you waiting so long. I think I can speak for all the Committee in saying how much we admire the resilience and courage that you have shown in carrying on with the cause. Thank you very much.
Lady Hermon
It is enormously useful for us to have you come here to this Committee to give your account on the record. It is really important for victims’ voices to be heard as part of our inquiry.
Christopher Daly
Historically, that might have been missed, I think. I am very appreciative of the fact we have been so much involved in trying to understand what went wrong. It is really appreciated from the families’ perspective as well.
Lady Hermon
It is very valuable for us, I can assure you.
Chair
Thank you very much. Oral evidence: The Administrative Scheme for ‘On-the-Runs’, HC 177 2 [1] The OTR letter sent to John Downey can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Cover-letter-from-NIO-to-Gerry-Kelly-and-John-Downey-OTR-Letter-July-2007.pdf [2] Mr Hain’s witness statement to Mr Justice Sweeney can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Peter-Hain-statement-to-Mr-Justice-Sweeney-January-2014.pdf [3] The letter from Lord Goldsmith to Peter Hain (February 2006) can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Letter-from-Lord-Goldsmith-to-Peter-Hain-February-2006.pdf [4] Operation Rapid terms of reference can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/northern-ireland-affairs/Operation-Rapid-Terms-of-Reference.pdf