United Kingdom

IHF FOCUS: Rule of law; elections; free- chaired by Professor Brice Dickson, was dom of expression and access to informa- set up under section 68 of the Northern tion; peaceful assembly; fair trial and de- Ireland Act 1998 in compliance with the tainees’ rights; torture, ill-treatment and Good Friday Agreement. The NIHRC is re- misconduct by law enforcement officials; quired by statute to advise the secretary of rights of homosexuals; protection of asy- state on the scope for defining, in a Bill of lum seekers and immigrants; accountabil- Rights for to be enacted ity for crimes against humanity; rights of by Westminister legislation, rights supple- the child; human rights defenders. mentary to those in the European Conven- tion on Human Rights. A bill to create a Human Rights Commission in the Repub- Most human rights violations in the UK lic of Ireland, with which the Northern Ire- were reported in connection with police land Human Rights Commission is to set abuse and intimidation. The recent deci- up a joint committee, was published in sions of the Director of Public Prosecu- summer 1999.1 tions (DPP) not to prosecute officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulory (RUC) in a On 19 January 2000, Northern Ireland number of cases involving harassment and Secretary confirmed the intimidation undermined faith in the effort RUC would have its named changed as to bring perpetrators of violence to justice part of the wide-ranging reforms recom- and damaged RUC credibility as an inves- mended in a review of policing carried out tigative mechanism. Fresh allegations of as part of the Good Friday peace agree- collusion in the murder of solicitor ment. The RUC will lose its royal title and Pat Finucane, and the murder of Rosemary be known as the Police Service of North- Nelson, further emphasized the need for ern Ireland from autumn 2001. The deci- independent and impartial inquiries into sion was welcomed by the Taoiseach (Irish the harassment of defense lawyers in Prime Minister) , and British Northern Ireland. Prime Minister . Many, howev- er, were critical of the new move, claiming A landmark decision by the European it dishonored the RUC and did not do jus- Court of Human Rights concerning homo- tice to all those who lost their lives to sec- sexuals’ right to respect for private life tarian strife in the past thirty years.2 forced changes in the military code, putting an end to overt discrimination on The inquiry into the 1993 racist murder of the grounds of sexuality. Other concerns Stephen Lawrence was published on 24 included accountability for misconduct by February. The Financial Times reported law enforcement officers, refugees’ rights, that senior UK legal figures said the power and accountability for crimes against hu- to re-try suspects for the same crime, a re- manity in the case of General Augusto form suggested by the inquiry, could lead Pinochet. to further abuse of the criminal justice sys- tem. Sir William Macpherson, the inquiry Rule of Law chairman, suggested that the Court of Ap- peal might be given the power to allow In March 1999, the Northern Ireland further prosecution in acquittal in cases Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), where “fresh and viable” evidence was

1 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Background Information, http://www.nihrc.org 2 BBC News, 19 January 2000, http://www.news.bbc.co.uk

396 United Kingdom presented. His recommendation was identifying positive features as regards the backed by Home Secretary Jack Straw Information Commissioner’s powers, ap- who said he had asked the Law Commis- peals and scope, was concerned by a sion to consider the suggestion. Geoffrey number of provisions in the draft law. Robertson QC, the defense barrister, Foremost in this regard was the extremely warned that “double jeopardy is enshrined broad nature of the exemptions and exclu- in almost every human rights treaty de- sions, many of which go far beyond what vised” and that “it is a principle to protect has been considered necessary in other ju- people from oppression. John Wadham, risdictions. This serious shortcoming was director of the human rights group Liberty, compounded by the weak test for engag- agreed: “This is wrong in principle [it will ing exemptions, which is at best a require- also] be used more often against black ment that disclosure of the information people than white.” The Bar Council re- would prejudice the relevant interest. The stated that it had no fundamental objec- public interest test suffered from several tion to a review of the removal of double flaws, including the fact that public inter- jeopardy, once proper safeguards were est is simply one factor amongst many, the provided.3 complete exclusion from its ambit of secu- rity information, and its essentially discre- Elections tionary nature. Article 19 also had a num- ber of serious concerns regarding process.5 On 18 February the European Court of Human Rights ordered the UK to pay legal Fair Trial and Detainees’ Rights costs in the amount of £ 47,780 (U.S.$ 75,500) to Denise Matthews, a In two judgments delivered at Strasbourg citizen who sued Britain for denying citi- on 16 December in the cases of T. v. the zens of its Gibraltar colony the right to vote United Kingdom and V. v. the United in European Parliament elections. The rul- Kingdom, the European Court of Human ing effectively orders Britain to extend vot- Rights ruled that there had been a viola- ing rights to Gibraltarians. The Foreign Of- tion of article 6(1) as regards the trial. fice said that “It is not in our power unilat- erally to extend the franchise ... [but] the The applicants were convicted in Novem- judgment greatly strengthens the basis on ber 1993 of the abduction and murder of a which to approach other member states.”4 two-year-old boy. They were ten years old at the time of the offence, and eleven at Freedom of Expression and the time of their trial, which took place in Access to Information public in the Crown Court and attracted high levels of press and public interest. In July, Article 19 published a submission Following their conviction, the applicants to the UK government on the Freedom of were sentenced to be detained indefinite- Information Bill. The submission, while ly, “during her Majesty’s pleasure.”6 The

3 Human Rights Daily, Thursday 25 February 1999. 4 Human Rights Daily, Friday 19 February 1999. 5 Article 19, Submission to the UK Government on the Freedom of Information Bill, issue 53, July 1999. 6 According to English law and practice, children and young persons sentenced to be detained during “her Majesty’s pleasure” must first serve a tariff period, set by the home secretary, to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Following the expiry of the tariff, detainees must be released unless, in the view of the Parole Board, they represent a danger to the public.

397 United Kingdom

home secretary then set a tariff of fifteen trial in view of the defendants’ young age. years in respect of each applicant. The de- Moreover, although there was psychiatric cision was quashed by the House of Lords evidence that such proceedings could be in judicial review proceedings on 12 June expected to have a harmful effect on 1997. No new tariff has been set since that eleven-year-old children, any inquiry into date. the killing of the two-year-old would have provoked in the applicants feelings of The applicants complained to the Euro- guilt, distress, anguish and fear. The court pean Court of Human Rights that, in view ruled that the public nature of the pro- of their young age, their trial in public in ceedings did not exacerbate these feelings an adult Crown Court and the punitive na- to the extent that it constituted a violation ture of their sentence constituted viola- of article 3. tions of their rights not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or pun- The court further ruled that article 6(1), ishment as guaranteed under article 3 of which guarantees the right of an accused the European Convention. They further to participate effectively in a criminal trial, complained that they were denied a fair had been violated because although the trial in breach of article 6 of the conven- applicants were represented by skilled and tion. In addition, they contended that the experienced lawyers, it was highly unlike- sentence imposed on them of detention ly that they would have felt sufficiently un- “at Her Majesty’s pleasure” amounted to a inhibited, in the tense court room and breach of their right to liberty under article under public scrutiny, to have consulted 5, and the fact that a government minister, their lawyers during the trial. Moreover, rather than a judge, was responsible for given their immaturity and disturbed emo- setting the tariff violated their rights under tional state, they would not have been article 6. Finally, they complained under able to cooperate with their lawyers and article 5(4) of the convention that, to date, give them information for the purposes of they had not had the opportunity to have their defense. The court awarded legal the continuing lawfulness of their deten- costs in the amount of £ 18,000 (U.S.$ tion examined by a judicial body, such as 29,736) and £ 32,000 (U.S.$ 52,864) to T. the Parole Board. and V. respectively.7

The European Court held that the age of The home secretary referred the cases to ten, although low, could not be said to be the Lord Chief Justice on 13 March 2000 so young as to differ disproportionately to for a decision on a release date. the age limit followed by other European states. The attribution of criminal responsi- Torture, Ill-Treatment and bility did not, therefore, in itself give rise to Misconduct by Law Enforcement a breach of article 3. Officials

The court recognized that the proceedings Accountability were not motivated by any intention on the part of the state authorities to humiliate Several verdicts in cases of alleged police the applicants or cause them suffering; in- violence were delivered in 1999. deed, special measures had been taken to modify the Crown Court procedure in ■ In January, prompted by the deaths in order to attenuate the rigors of an adult custody of Nathan Delahunty and Roger

7 T. v. the United Kingdom and V. v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, 16 December 1999.

398 United Kingdom

Sylvester, the London Metropolitan police ■ In April, firearms officer PC Chris Sher- announced plans to bring in rapid re- wood was charged with murder and sponse medical units. An inquest in Janu- manslaughter after shooting dead James ary decided that the death of Nathan De- Ashley during a raid in January 1998. Ash- lahunty in July 1998 had been caused ley was naked, unarmed and in bed with partly as a result of being restrained by po- his girlfriend when thirty officers raided his lice and carried to a van with his hands flat in Hastings in connection with cocaine cuffed behind his back while under the in- trafficking and attempted murder, al- fluence of cocaine. Similarly, Roger though it subsequently emerged that po- Sylvester died eight days after being re- lice were acting on inaccurate intelligence strained outside his Tottenham home on reports and that the attempted murder 11 January 1998. The eight police officers have been prevented rather than perpetrat- that restrained Sylvester were moved to ed by Ashley. Four other officers were non-operational duties while an inquiry charged with misfeasance in a public of- was conducted by Essex police under the fice. Two senior officers received discipli- supervision of the Police Complaints Au- nary notices, and Deputy Chief Constable thority. The Metropolitan Police, who Mark Jordan remained suspended while claimed he had behaved in an “aggressive awaiting a disciplinary tribunal.11 and vociferous” manner at the time of the restraint although there was no evidence Many of the investigations into police bru- to support this, apologized for issuing a tality were linked to violence in Northern false statement about Sylvester.8 Ireland. Following the conclusion of the Adams case in the High Court, the Inde- ■ Five police officers were suspended as pendent Commission for Police Com- part of an investigation into the death of plaints in Northern Ireland carried out an Christopher Alder, who died in April 1998 investigation into the case and a file was after being restrained face down with his passed on to the DPP. arms handcuffed behind his back on the floor of the Hull police station.9 ■ was severely ill-treated by police upon his arrest in east Belfast and at ■ The Prison Service was criticized in a re- Castlereagh Holding Centre in Northern port published in March by the Parliamen- Ireland in February 1994. He reportedly tary Ombudsman, Michael Buckley, for its suffered a fractured leg, two fractured ribs, conduct in the case of Kenneth Severin, a punctured lung, and multiple cuts and who died in November 1995 after being bruises to his face and body as well as ver- restrained face-down on the floor by bal abuse. The High Court awarded prison officers. Among the shortcomings Adams £ 30,000 (U.S.$ 47,630) compen- highlighted were the Prison Service’s fail- sation in February 1998, the judge con- ure to train its staff adequately on the dan- cluding that “at least most of the injuries gers of using traditional restraint tech- suffered by Adams were more likely to be niques and its failure to disclose details of the result of direct, deliberate blows,” its internal inquiry into Severin’s death to which in his view constituted “illegal be- his family. Following the report, the Prison havior.” Furthermore, the judge ques- Service agreed to release information re- tioned the truth and accuracy of the evi- lating to Severin’s death.10 dence of police officers at the scene, who

8 , Concerns in Europe, January – June 1999. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

399 United Kingdom

denied that Adams had been assaulted. take civil action against the six officers Still, despite the clear-cut nature of the originally charged, and against four police physical evidence in the case and the High officers who they say refused to come to Court ruling, in August 1999 the DPP de- Hamill’s assistance.13 The Hamill family’s cided not to bring any criminal charges lawyer, , was murdered against the officers involved. In January in March 1999. 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on tor- ture said that the UK government had The Northern Ireland “Marching Season” failed to respond to his September request for its findings in the Adams case.12 The Northern Ireland “Marching Season” commonly refers to the May-August period ■ Marc Hobson was acquitted in March in which loyal fraternal order (the Orange 1999 of Robert Hamill’s murder for lack of Order, the Apprentice Boys of Derry, and evidence. Hobson had been jailed for four the Royal Black Institution) plan marches years for committing an affray at the time and parades to commemorate historical of the incident. In its judgment, the events of significance to the Protestant Diplock Court said that it was unable to community. The marches have been con- resolve whether police officers present had tentious, however, because they have in- failed to react adequately when Hamill volved processions through predominantly was attacked along with his companions Catholic-nationalist neighborhoods. RUC by around 30 Loyalist men and women. policing has exacerbated the situation by Hamill suffered severe head injuries; he using excessive physical force against never regained consciousness and died on peaceful protestors; indiscriminately firing 8 May 1997. He was allegedly beaten in plastic bullets under circumstances which plain sight of four officers sitting in an RUC violated not only international standards jeep about 20 feet away, none of whom for the use of force, but the RUC’s own in- intervened to stop the attack. Following ternal guidelines regulating the use of plas- misleading and inadequate investigations tic bullets; verbally assaulting protesters into the case, six people were arrested and with sectarian and sexist insults; and gen- charged with his murder. However, by erally failing to halt illegal activities during November 1997, all but one of the six sus- marching disturbances.14 pects had been released. Charges against the other five were dropped because, on On 9 September, the Independent Com- the available evidence, there was no rea- mission on Policing for Northern Ireland sonable prospect of convicting any of the published its report in accordance with the officers. No one was ever charged with the Good Friday Agreement aimed at a “new assault on Hamill’s companion, Gregory beginning to policing in Northern Ireland Girvan, who suffered facial cuts and se- with a police service capable of attracting vere bruising. Following Hobson’s acquit- and sustaining support from the communi- tal in March 1999, DPP ultimately decid- ty as a whole”. The report, however, states ed, on 29 September, not to bring criminal that “a fresh start cannot be fashioned out charges against the officers. Following this of a series of judgments about who was decision, the Hamill family decided to culpable for each of the tragedies and mis-

12 Amnesty International, United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. End Impunity for Ill-Treatment: the David Adams Case, EUR 45/45/99, 4 November 1999. 13 Amnesty International, United Kingdom: Northern Ireland. The Sectarian Killing of Robert Hamill Report, EUR 45/31/99, October 1999. 14 Human Rights Watch, Developments: The 1999 Marching Season, http://www.hrw.org

400 United Kingdom takes,” noting that Northern Ireland voted crimes. Other police forces were said to be overwhelmingly in 1998 to turn its back paying close attention to the project. on the politics of revenge and retaliation15 and thus failing to secure a mechanism The Scottish Human Rights Centre ex- that would ensure that police officers who pressed grave concern over this develop- were involved in human rights abuses ment. It said it appeared that the police were not retained in the force. The Patten were going beyond the powers given to Report also recommended a human rights- them by law. The Criminal Procedure based approach to policing, a new oath (Scotland) Act 1995 allowed for police to expressing an explicit commitment to up- take DNA samples, but only with “regard holding human rights, a new code of to the circumstances of the suspected of- ethics integrating the European Conven- fence” and only when it was reasonably tion on Human Rights into police practice, considered to be appropriate, i.e., not in and the monitoring of police performance every situation. The Scottish Human Rights by the Policing Board.16 Centre recognized that DNA testing did have benefits in solving some crimes. It The Committee on the Administration of noted, however, that it was important to Justice (CAJ) and Human Rights Watch regulate its use properly and to inform the both expressed their disappointment at the public about who had access to the infor- lack of a vetting mechanism to weed out mation and what was being done with it. officers currently serving in the RUC with The police were not allowed to keep past records of human rights violations. records of DNA where there was no pro- They expressed further concern on the fail- ceedings taken or a person was not con- ure to call for an immediate end to the use victed, but there was so independent of emergency legislation and plastic bul- mechanism to ensure that samples had lets in line with recommendations by a va- been destroyed.18 riety of UN human rights bodies.17 Rights of Homosexuals DNA Testing in Scotland In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on In July, the Lothian and Borders Police in 27 September in the case of Lustig-Prean Scotland announced that they would ex- and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, the tend the use of DNA testing and take sam- European Court of Human Rights held ples from all those arrested for crimes such unanimously that there had been a viola- as assault, car theft and house breaking, tion of article 8 (right to respect for private becoming the first police force in the UK and family life) of the European Conven- to use DNA sampling on such a large tion on Human Rights. In a second judg- scale. Until then, police had tended to use ment delivered on the same day in the these powers only for violent or sexual case of Smith and Grady v. the United

15 The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, The Task of the Independent Commission on Policing, Chapter 1, p. 4 (text in full available at http://www.belfast.org.uk) 16 Ibid.; Summary of Recommendations, Chapter 20, p.107. 17 Committee on the Administration of Justice, “CAJ Reaction to Patten Report,” press release, 9 September 1999; see also Human Rights Watch, “Northern Ireland: Critique of Patten Report,” press Release, 23 November 1999. 18 Scottish Human Rights Centre, Rights, Newsletter, September 1999. http://www.dspace.dial.pipex.com/shrc/

401 United Kingdom

Kingdom, the court also found a violation fect on the applicants’ careers and of article 8 together with a violation of ar- prospects and considered the absolute and ticle 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the general character of the policy, which ad- convention. mitted of no exception, to be striking. It therefore considered that the investiga- All four applicants, who were at the rele- tions conducted into the applicants’ sexu- vant time members of the UK armed al orientation, together with their dis- forces, are homosexual. The Ministry of charge from the armed forces, constituted Defense applied a policy which excluded especially grave interference with their pri- homosexuals from the armed forces. The vate lives. applicants, who were each the subject of an investigation by the service police con- In the case of Smith and Grady v. the Unit- cerning their homosexuality, all admitted ed Kingdom, in relation to article 8, the their homosexuality and were administra- court adopted the same reasoning and tively discharged on the sole ground of reached the same conclusion as in Lustig- their sexual orientation, in accordance Prean and Beckett. In addition, the court with ministry of defense policy. They were did not exclude that treatment grounded discharged in January 1995, July 1993, upon a predisposed bias on the part of a November 1994 and December 1994 re- heterosexual majority against a homosexu- spectively. The Court of Appeal rejected al minority as in the present case could, in their judicial review applications in No- principle, fall within the scope of article 3. vember 1995. All four applicant com- It also accepted that the Ministry of De- plained to the European Court of Human fense policy together with the consequent Rights that the investigations into their sex- investigations and discharges were un- ual orientation and their subsequent dis- doubtedly distressing and humiliating for charges violated their right to respect for each of the applicants. However, the court their private lives, protected by article 8 of did not consider that, in the circumstances the convention, and that they had been of the case, the treatment reached the min- discriminated against contrary to article imum level of severity which would bring 14. In addition, Smith and Grady further it within the scope of article 3. According- complained that the Ministry of Defense ly, it concluded that there had been no vi- policy against homosexuals and conse- olation of article 3 either alone or in con- quent investigations and discharges were junction with article 14.19 degrading contrary to article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or pun- Secretary of State for Defense Geoff Hoon ishment); that the policy limited their right MP said, in a statement to the House of to express their sexual identity in violation Commons on 12 January 2000, that “in of article 10 (freedom of expression); and light of the court’s decisions, it was clear that they did not have an effective domes- that the existing policy was not legally sus- tic remedy for their complaints as required tainable. As a result, a revised policy has by article 13. Article 14 was also invoked been instigated in order to reflect the in conjunction with the complaints under court’s conclusion that legally we are articles 3 and 10. The court considered the obliged to adopt an approach which re- investigations, and in particular the inter- gards sexual orientation as essentially a views of the applicants, to have been ex- private matter for the individual.” Mem- ceptionally intrusive, noting that the ad- bers of the armed forces will, however, be ministrative discharges had a profound ef- subject to a code of conduct that will reg-

19 Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom and Smoth and Grady v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, 27 September 1999.

402 United Kingdom ulate personal behavior, at the heart of October, Magistrate Bartle specifically which is a service test which asks: “have ruled, however, that Pinochet’s conduct the actions or behavior of an individual before 1988 – which would include the adversely impacted or are they likely to creation of the secret police and the estab- impact on the efficiency or operational ef- lishment of Operation Condon targeting fectiveness of the service?”20 Pinochet’s opponents abroad – could be examined by the Spanish courts in proving Protection of Asylum Seekers the existence of a conspiracy which con- and Immigrants tinued after December 1988. Bartle’s rul- ing was particularly significant for its treat- On 9 February, a new Immigration and ment of the conspiracy charge and of the Asylum Bill, (containing most of the mea- allegations of “disappearances” by sures outlined in the White Paper, ’Fairer, Pinochet’s regime. Firmer, Faster: A Modern Approach to Im- migration and Asylum’, which the govern- On 5 January 2000, Pinochet underwent a ment issued in July 1998), was introduced thorough and extensive medical examina- into parliament. While the Refugee Coun- tion undertaken by an eminent team of cil welcomed the government’s attention clinicians appointed by the secretary of to this area, they remained gravely con- state, with a view to obtaining compre- cerned that the new bill introduces a hensive advice on his condition. The de- sweeping range of draconian controls tail of the report remained confidential to upon asylum seekers, without adequate Pinochet, but the “unequivocal and unan- safeguards or accountability; it remains imous conclusion of the three medical vague in detail in many key points and practitioners and the consultant neuropsy- hands huge powers to specify details to the chologist is that, following recent deterio- home secretary through secondary legisla- ration in the state of Pinochet’s health, tion; and its proposals for a new national which seems to have occurred principally support system carry huge risks in terms of during September and October 1999, he is the effect on individuals and potential to at present unfit to stand trial, and that no waste public money.21 change to that position can be expected.” Under the circumstances, the secretary of Accountability for Crimes state was “minded” not to extradite Against Humanity Pinochet.”22

In its second decision on 24 March, the Human rights groups expressed outrage at House of Lords ruled that the only crimes this decision, particularly in view of the for which General Augusto Pinochet of confidential nature of the medical exam Chile could be extradited were torture and and criticizing the lack of transparency conspiracy to commit torture after 8 De- and fairness of the procedure. Criticism cember 1988, when the UN Convention was largely levied at the fact that the on Torture took effect in the UK. Proceed- “medical opinion was evaluated in secret ings on the extradition of General by the home secretary, a political official, Pinochet began on 27 September. On 8 rather than by a court, without any oppor-

20 Home Secretary, press release, BBC News 12 January 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk 21 Refugee Council, Briefing on the Government’s New Immigration and Asylum Bill, March 1999. 22 BBC News, Home Office Statement in Full, 12 January 2000. http://www.news.bbc.co.uk

403 United Kingdom

tunity for the prosecution to observe the picion of criminal activity. For example, medical examination, challenge it, or ob- pending a court hearing, the child should tain a second independent medical opin- not be transferred to a police station, but to ion.”23 another place of safety; and a minor could only be kept in a cell if a police officer cer- Newly elected Chilean President Ricardo tified that the minor was unruly. Although Lagos was opposed to Pinochet facing trial such regulations could only be disregard- in Spain, on the grounds that it violated ed in exceptional circumstances, it ap- Chilean sovereignty, but promised that peared that financial constraints had civil actions against him in Chile can pro- caused the police to put the children at ceed. If Pinochet is prosecuted, Lagos risk. promised to amend the constitution draft- ed by the general himself, to remove his According to the Scottish Human Rights immunity.24 Centre, police training aimed at dealing with children and deciding on how to Although Pinochet was allowed to return properly determine the unruliness of a home to Chile on 2 March 2000, Amnesty child was also inadequate. Her Majesty’s International said that the extradition pro- Inspectorate of the Constabulory reported ceedings against him will leave a powerful that it was aware that children were kept legacy that people accused of crimes in police cells because of limited accom- against humanity can be prosecuted any- modation for child suspects in Scotland where in the world. and that “this fact should not be used as an inappropriate reason for detaining chil- According to Amnesty International USA dren in police custody.”26 section Executive Director William F. Schulz, “The Pinochet case has also firmly Human Rights Defenders established that former heads of state are not immune from prosecution for such Rosemary Nelson crimes. This achievement stands despite the decision by the British home secretary On 15 March, Rosemary Nelson, a human not to extradite General Pinochet to rights activist and lawyer, was killed in a Spain.”25 car bomb attack near her home in Lurgan, County Armagh, Northern Ireland. The Rights of the Child , a loyalist paramili- tary group, claimed responsibility amid In July, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary suspicion of RUC involvement. criticized the unacceptably high number of children being held in police cells be- In October 1997, Nelson had given evi- side adults in the Lothian and Borders dence to UN Special Rapporteur Param areas of Scotland. The law provided for Cumaraswamy on the Independence of specific procedures that should be fol- Judges and Lawyers in an investigation lowed when a minor was arrested on sus- into allegations of the harassment and in-

23 Amnesty International, Pinochet Case: Home Secretary’s Statement a Mockery of Justice, news release, EUR 45/05/00, 12 January 2000. 24 The Irish Times, Tuesday 18 January 2000, www.ireland.com 25 Amnesty International, press release, 2 March 2000, http://www.amnestyusa.org.news 26 Scottish Human Rights Centre, Rights, Newsletter, September 1999, http://www.dspace.dial.pipex.com/shrc/

404 United Kingdom timidation of defense lawyers by officers of called in to replace the RUC and head its the RUC. In January 1998, the UN special own investigation into allegations of death rapporteur expressed particular concern threats, illustrating the lack of confidence for Nelson’s safety in a documentary tele- in the RUC investigation process.29 vised by Channel 4.27 In April 1999, the European Parliament On 29 September 1998, Nelson had given and the U.S. House of Representatives evidence to the International Operations both passed resolutions urging the UK to and Human Rights Sub-Committee of the carry out independent investigation into U.S. Congress. Nelson testified that “RUC the murder of Nelson’s murder.30 The officers questioned her professional in- House of Representatives also passed the tegrity, made allegations that she was a American Embassy Security Act, section member of a paramilitary group and, at 408 of which was designed stop RUC their most serious, made threats against members’ participation in any FBI program her personal safety, including death of educational or cultural exchange or threats.” She noted that all of the remarks training unless “complete, independent, had been made to her clients in her ab- credible and transparent investigations of sence because lawyers in Northern Ireland the murders of defense attorneys Rosemary were routinely excluded from interviews Nelson and Patrick Finucane have been with clients detained in holding centers.28 initiated by the government of the United Kingdom and that the government has The UN report, which was published in taken appropriate steps to protect defense March 1998, concluded that “the RUC attorneys against RUC harassment in had engaged in activities constituting in- Northern Ireland.”31 timidation, hindrance, harassment or im- proper interference.” It recorded particular On 8 January 2000, the DPP announced concern “that the RUC identified solicitors its decision not to prosecute any RUC offi- with their clients or their clients’ causes as cers involved in threatening Nelson’s a result of discharging their functions.” In life.32 July 1998, the ICPC raised a number of se- rious concerns with Secretary of State Mo Patrick Finucane Mowlam and chief constable Ronnie Flanagan, over the RUC handling of its In his report of 13 January 1999, the UN own investigation into death threats special rapporteur emphasized two issues: against Nelson. As a result, a commander the intimidation and harassment of de- from the London Metropolitan Police was fense lawyers and the murder of Patrick

27 The Pat Finucane Centre for Human Rights and Social Change, Rosemary Nelson: The Life and Death of a Human Rights Defender, http://www.homepage.iol.ie/~pfc/index.htm 28 Rosemary Nelson Campaign, Statement to the International Operations and Human Rights Sub-Committee, Reference Material: http:// www.rosemarynelsoncampaign.com 29 Commission on Human Rights, 54th Session E/CN.4/1998/39/Add.4, www.unhchr.ch 30 The Patrick Finucane Centre for Human Rights and Social Change, Rosemary Nelson: Appendix E, http://www.server.com/pfc/rosemary/rosemary.html; U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Resolution H.Res.128, passed 20 April 1999. 31 Library of Congress, American Embassy Security Act H.R 2415, http://www.thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html 32 Rosemary Nelson Campaign, Failure to Prosecute in Rosemary Nelson Harassment Case Condemned, press release, 8 January 2000.

405 United Kingdom

Finucane, a defense lawyer in Northern protested the order arguing that it could re- Ireland brutally murdered in 1989. In his sult in a chilling effect on reporting on view, the RUC showed “complete indiffer- governmental accountability and coercing ence” to the allegations of intimidation journalists that explored collusion.35 and harassment contained in credible NGO reports. The UN special rapporteur Moloney challenged the court order at an expressed his conviction that there were August hearing. Stobie was granted bail on compelling reasons for an independent ju- 5 October 1999 and Moloney has since dicial inquiry because of at least prima won his case. facie evidence of such collusion.33 The Nelson murder and the renewed in- On 12 February 1999, British Irish Rights vestigation into the Finucane murder con- Watch submitted a confidential report to firmed the precarious position of defense the British government containing new ev- lawyers in Northern Ireland as targets of idence of collusion between the RUC and abuse. Amid credible evidence of collu- the loyalist paramilitaries who murdered sion, the RUC also came under consider- defense lawyer Pat Finucane in 1989.34 able public suspicion. ■■■

In April, John Stevens, deputy commis- sioner of the London Metropolitan Police, was enlisted to reopen the Finucane mur- der investigation. In June, his team arrest- ed and charged him with Finucane’s murder. Stobie denied the charge but it later turned out that following Finucane’s killing, he had already admit- ted his participation in it – an account that contrasted sharply with a prior statement by the DPP that in 1990 Stobie had denied involvement in the murder. A Sunday Tri- bune article from 27 June, written by and based on interview with Stobie in 1990, alleged that Stobie had es- caped arms possession charges only through keeping silent about RUC com- plicity in the Finucane murder. Ed Moloney was ordered under the Preven- tion of Terrorism Act in July to surrender notes from 1990 interviews with Stobie, upon which the June 1999 article was based. Human rights organizations

33 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 13 January 1999, Geneva, http://www.unhchr.ch/ 34 Irish Government, Dail Debates, Official Report 17 February 1999, http://www.irlgov.ie/oireachtas/frame.htm 35 Committee on the Administration of Justice, Groups Express Concern on Moloney Case, press release, 22 September 1999.

406