The Murder of Pat Finucane: An Inquiry Denied

By Jacob Hudson, JF Law and Political Science “We want to know who pulled the trigger. We want to know who pulled the strings.” Those are the words of John Finucane, Sinn Féin MP for Belfast North, speaking at the Oireachtas Good Friday Implementation Committee, on November 26. He is, of course referring to the murder of his own father, Pat Finucane, perhaps the most prolific human rights and criminal defence lawyer in Irish history.

Finucane, a graduate of Trinity’s Law School, attracted fame for representing many Irish Republican Army (IRA) members and republicans in court throughout the 1980s including hunger striker Bobby Sands. Tragically, on February 12, 1989, he was shot dead at the dinner table of his family home in north Belfast, witnessed by his wife, Geraldine Finucane, and three children. The Ulster Defence Association (UDA), an infamous loyalist paramilitary, claimed responsibility for the attack, declaring that Finucane was a high-ranking member of the IRA. These allegations of membership of the republican paramilitary were fiercely denied by his family and were later refuted by the UK Government’s Stevens Report. Despite Finucane’s reputation for representing republican clients, he had also represented those on the loyalist side of the divide.

Since that fateful day in February 1989, there has been widespread and since confirmed allegations of collusion between British security forces in Northern Ireland and the UDA over the killing of Finucane. This was confirmed by British Prime Minister, David Cameron in 2012, following the conclusion of the De Silva report. This was a review of all existing documentation regarding the murder by Sir Desmond De Silva, who had previously worked as the United Nations Chief War Crimes Prosecutor in Sierra Leone. Cameron issued an apology on behalf of the British Government for the “shocking levels of collusion” between themselves and loyalist paramilitaries. However, even still, the De Silva report itself asserted there was no “over-arching state conspiracy”. In a press conference following the release of the report, Geraldine Finucane condemned the review as a “sham”. She too emphatically declared its failure to identify those responsible for the collusion as “hurtful and insulting”.

What the Finucane family want is a public inquiry into the death of the Belfast solicitor, and for the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), British security services and loyalist paramilitaries to be prosecuted. Although UDA volunteer, Ken Barrett, pleaded guilty to the murder in 2004 (after tapes resurfaced of his admission to the RUC from 1991), the Finucanes are sceptical of the justice delivered by this trial. To them, Cameron’s admission of collusion hints at many more people with “blood on their hands” - perhaps much higher up in the chain of command.

Page 51 Law In the past, it looked more likely that a public inquiry would be held. In fact, in 2001, after intense demands from Amnesty International, the British and Irish Governments agreed to appoint a retired Canadian Supreme Court judge, Peter Cory, to investigate the allegations of state involvement. Cory in 2004 concluded that a public inquiry was necessary, but this request was not followed up on by the British Government until 2007. This inquiry, however, was to be set up under Inquiries Act 2005, meaning it would be run and administered totally by the state, severely limiting its scope of investigation. Amnesty and the Finucanes were critical of this lack of independence set out in this proposal and stated they would not cooperate, instead calling for a “truly independent inquiry” and for “all members of the British judiciary not to serve on the inquiry”. For the next 13 years, “the can was kicked down the road” on the establishment of an independent inquiry despite Cory’s advice. More recently in February 2019, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the British Government’s decision to hold a review instead of an independent public inquiry was in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under this clause, contracting states have a duty (amongst other things) to effectively investigate the deaths of those residing within their jurisdiction. In the judgement, Lord Kerr criticised the De Silva report and other antecedent investigations for not identifying those involved in the collusion that led to the murder of Pat Finucane. Because of this, the report was not “Article 2 compliant”. Still, Lord Kerr could not order a public inquiry, and declared that, ultimately, it was up to the government to decide whether to conduct said inquiry.

Since then, there have been increased calls for an independent public inquiry by Finucane’s family, human rights campaigners, and political figures alike. Indeed, the Labour Party in Britain has called on the government to “act without delay” on the establishment of the inquiry. Adding to this, in late November of this year, several leaders of Northern Irish political parties including Michelle O’Neill (Sinn Féin), Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic & Labour Party), Stephen Farry (Alliance) and Clare Bailey (Green Party) drafted a letter to Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis, asking him to finally host a public inquiry. Similarly, in a phone call with Boris Johnson on Friday, 27th November, Taoiseach Micheál Martin urged the Prime Minister to finally hold an independent public inquiry that is compliant with Article 2 of the ECHR. Furthermore, on 25th November, 26 members of the United States Congress issued a letter to Prime Minister Johnson on the same subject. They act as a strong voice for the ever so influential Irish-American lobby in Washington.

But as of November 30th, Brandon Lewis has effectively shut the door on the Finucane issue, stating in the House of Commons that the government will not meet the calls for an independent inquiry. Despite the mounting pressure in recent weeks, the Finucane family have yet again been left disappointed by the British Government. Lewis instead has suggested instructing the “local police” (Police Service of Northern Ireland) to re-investigate the issue - undermining the advice of the UK Supreme Court, which held this would not be Article 2 compliant. Having announced his intention to give a verdict on whether to host the inquiry back on 16th October, the future seemed optimistic for the Finucanes. However, it now looks unlikely that this issue will be revisited seriously by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or indeed any part of the British Government in the near future. It seems that the best the Finucane family can hope for is to wait for a change of power. The Conservative Party have traditionally taken a hard-line approach to republicanism in Northern Ireland, epitomised by Margaret Thatcher’s resistance to the demands of the 1981 hunger strikers. It therefore seems unlikely that they would wish to damage the reputation of her government, as a result the possible findings that an inquiry may incur.

In a statement released shortly after the Secretary’s announcement, Geraldine Finucane published a statement accusing Lewis’ of making a “mockery” of the UK Supreme Court’s legitimacy, and shamed the British Government for being “in breach of their international legal obligations”. More personally, it was “yet another insult to a deep and lasting injury”. Yet Finucane states that she and her family are not “going away” - and neither is their “campaign for truth and justice”.