John Copeland Murdered by the British army, October 1971

Report compiled for the Copeland family by Relatives For Justice

The untold stories of Relatives, Victims and Survivors

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 1 2/4/19 7:34 PM John Copeland Murdered by the British army, October 1971

Introduction 20-year-old Gunner Robert Curtis, shot dead in the conflict. He was the first British soldier to die on duty John Copeland was shot and fatally in Ireland since 1921. injured by British soldiers not far In all, 180 people died in the year, 94 of them civilians. from his home in Ladbrook Drive The British forces dead comprised 44 British soldiers, in Ardoyne, north Belfast, on the 11 RUC officers and 5 Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) evening of the 28th October 1971. men. Twenty-three republicans and three loyalists He died two days later. In the year were killed during the year. Of the total number of John died 20 people were killed deaths, republican organisations were responsible for in Ardoyne and the surrounding 107, the British army for 45, loyalists for 22 and the RUC area, 7 civilians, 7 British soldiers, 4 Royal Ulster for one death. Constabulary (RUC) officers and 2 Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteers. That same year eleven civilians Purpose of RFJ Family Reports were killed in Ballymurphy, west Belfast, by the British Army’s Parachute Regiment between the 9th This report has been compiled by Relatives For and 11th of August and the Ulster Volunteer Force Justice (RFJ) on behalf of the Copeland family as a full (UVF) planted a no warning bomb on the doorstep account of available information on what happened of the family-run McGurk’s Bar in north Belfast on the to their husband and father. It provides a narrative 4th December, killing 15 Catholic civilians. for the family and an analysis of the wider context in The nationalist population’s civil disobedience which this killing occurred. It highlights outstanding campaign intensified throughout the course of questions that require answers, ultimately from the 1971, particularly in response to draconian security British state. The report challenges the self-serving measures, while unionism was in crisis with the and partial “official” British narrative of their troops resignation of James Chichester-Clark as Prime acting as neutral peace-keepers between opposing Minister. The new unionist Prime Minister in the communities. north of Ireland, Brian Faulkner, the third in just over In the absence of a legally-compliant investigation a year, introduced internment on the 9th August or examination of the evidence, this publication 1971. Emblematic of the unionist approach to the addresses official lies and propaganda by giving crisis was Faulkner’s announcement on 25th May, expression to the Copeland family’s sentiments and two and a half months before internment, that: views concerning what happened to their loved one. “any soldier seeing any person with a weapon or RFJ seeks to provide a voice for families and their loved seeing any person acting suspiciously may fire either ones in their continuing pursuit of truth, accountability to warn or may fire with effect, depending on the and justice. circumstances and without waiting for orders from The report is also about remembering John . anyone”1. This was giving soldiers carte blanche to Copeland’s life and the impact of his death shoot-to-kill. Meanwhile, Loyalist vigilante groups emerged on Family background a large scale and many of them came together to John ‘Johnny’ Copeland was born on 7th September form the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). The year 1949 and had three brothers (Eddie, Jimmy and, 1971 also saw the first member of the British army, Paddy) and five sisters (Kathleen, Evelyn, Ellen, Mary and Winnie). Johnny was the youngest of the nine 1 Thomas Hennessy, A History of Northern Ireland, Gill & siblings. MacMillan, 1997, p. 192.

2 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 2 2/4/19 7:34 PM Holy Cross Boys primary school and then St Gabriel’s secondary school. When he left school, Johnny first became an upholsterer, worked for a time as a bus conductor and later went on to become a male nurse. Johnny was a keen boxer and fought for the Holy Family boxing club, Newington, Belfast. He was also a member of a weightlifting club in Butler Street, Ardoyne and played football for St Gabriel’s school. Outside of his sporting activities Johnny had an interest in Irish dancing and he met his future wife Carol at an Irish dancing class in the Marrowbone, a neighbouring area adjacent to Ardoyne. Both Carol and Johnny went to live in England when they were training to be nurses. They returned home and were married in Holy Cross chapel in August 1968. After they were married they lived for a short period of time with Johnny’s mother in Strathroy Park. Johnny and Carol had two Johnny and Carol children: Linda was born in 1969 and their son, Eddie, in 1970. They first moved into a house in Kerrera Street, Ardoyne and then in June 1971 moved into what would be their family home in Ladbrook Drive, Ardoyne. The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) review into the murder of John Copeland

Like most families bereaved by British state forces, the Copeland family knew little about the state’s reaction concerning Johnny’s killing. However, it didn’t take long to realise that one thing was evident: the person responsible wasn’t going to be held to account. There was an investigation - of sorts - and an inquest, but no-one ever let the family know what

Carol and Johnny in the grounds of Holy Cross chapel on evidence and information had been gathered. It their wedding day was then PSNI Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, who in 2005 decided to instigate a review of all deaths that Johnny was 23 years old at the time he was killed. occurred during the conflict. He set up the Historical He lived with his wife, Carol, and their two young Enquiries Team (HET) to carry out this task and it children, Eddie and Linda, at Ladbrook Drive, began a review of the case file into Johnny’s killing Ardoyne, Belfast. His parents Edward and Susan (née in 2011. This was the first time the family had been Moane) were both originally from the Short Strand, approached by any official investigators and Johnny’s close to the city centre. They moved to Ardoyne at wife, Carol, and his son, Eddie, engaged with the HET an early age and brought up their family in Strathroy with the support of RFJ. Park. The HET was abolished in 2015 without the HET Johnny’s nickname was ‘Snout’ because, as his wife Review Summary Report (RSR) into John Copeland’s Carol puts it: ‘he had a big nose’. He was educated at death being completed, though it emerged that

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 3

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 3 2/4/19 7:34 PM a draft report had been worked up. (An RSR was hostile and repressive force whose presence was intended to provide families with the outcome of overwhelmingly opposed by the people of Ardoyne. the HET’s review of all available material in the police Resistance to their presence took many forms from file relating to the original investigation, including routine protests against patrols, to riots and the any further investigative steps undertaken by the actions of the IRA. Just immediately before Johnny HET.) RFJ requested a copy of the draft HET RSR into was shot, 22-year-old Michael McLarnon, another Johnny’s killing from the PSNI’s Legacy Investigation Ardoyne resident, had been shot by a British soldier Branch (LIB) in the summer of 2015 and, finally, in Etna Drive; there is little doubt it was the same received a copy on the 21st June 2017. patrol that killed Johnny. Michael McLarnon died The HET RSR failed to explain sufficiently why later that night. there was not a proper investigation into Johnny’s The attitude of the soldiers in the Green Howards death by the RUC. While it may have revealed more regiment during their tour of 1972 can be seen from information regarding the circumstances that led the account of Brendan Clarke in ‘Ardoyne: The Untold to Johnny’s killing, the report did not address all the Truth’. 2 Soldiers entered the back yard of Brendan’s questions that the Copeland family consider still house, also in Etna Drive, barged into the house and demand answers. Moreover, the RSR underlined the took it over, imprisoning the family in a downstairs family’s contention that the RUC failed to carry out a room. Some of the soldiers went upstairs and fired proper investigation into his death or to keep them through the window injuring a girl. They were updated. laughing and gave a lot of verbal abuse to Brendan and his family. They said they were: “out to kill IRA The British army in Ardoyne at the men tonight”. time of John Copeland’s murder This was the atmosphere in Ardoyne that evening: as soon as patrols appeared, protests were inevitable.

Circumstances regarding the murder of John Copeland

John Copeland was shot dead by a soldier of the Green Howards Regiment at the junction of Berwick Road and Estoril Park, Ardoyne, Belfast at approximately 9.11pm on Thursday 28th October 1971. He died from his injuries at the Mater Infirmorum Hospital on the Crumlin Road at 6.30pm two days later, on Saturday 30th October 1971. On the night Johnny was shot, two units of Green Howards Regiment soldiers left Flax Street Mill barracks at 8.09pm to carry out a patrol in Ardoyne. The two patrols followed different routes from the end of Flax Street. The patrol that included the Michael McLarnon soldier who killed Johnny arrived at Berwick Road and then made its way along Alliance Avenue to Etna From January 1971 until the death of John Copeland Drive. By this time, crowds gathered in Etna Drive at in November of that year six civilians including John the junctions of Northwick Drive and Strathroy Park were shot dead in Ardoyne by soldiers from the to protest at the British army presence on the streets. Green Howards Regiment. In the same period five These protests only intensified when shots were fired soldiers from the Green Howards Regiment were by both patrols. killed by the IRA. 2 By the Ardoyne Commemoration Project, published by The British Army operated as an occupying, Beyond the Pale Publications in 2002, see page 87.

4 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 4 2/4/19 7:34 PM 2

1

3

Route of Army Patrol British Army Base

Route of British army patrol Location where victims were shot: 1: Michael McLarnon, 2: Margaret McGrandle, 3: John Copeland The first shots killed Michael McLarnon, and - ten throwing stones and bottles. The soldiers fired minutes later - Margaret McGrandle was seriously several rubber bullets at the crowd and then made injured by further shots. Michael McLarnon’s death their way up an alleyway (which ran parallel to as well as the injury to Margaret McGrandle has Northwick Drive and Strathroy Park). The crowd always been claimed by a soldier from the other followed the soldiers up both Northwick Drive and patrol. Despite the confusion and the varying claims, Strathroy Park. however, it appears it was in fact the same patrol that The soldiers said that they took up positions at was responsible for killing both Michael McLarnon the top of the alleyway at the junction with Berwick and Johnny.3 Road. The crowd was in Berwick road at its junction (In typical fashion, the British army claimed that with Cranbrook Gardens and Estoril Park blocking Michael was either armed or organising other armed the soldiers in the alleyway. men when he was shot. Eventually, a HET report into his death in 2010, vindicated the McLarnon family’s According to the HET RSR, consistent assertion that he was an unarmed and uninvolved civilian and there was no justification for ‘Soldier A and Soldier B said they saw a gunman his shooting.) in Berwick Road near to the junction with Estoril According to the soldiers’ statements from the Park. He had a pistol in his hand and he moved patrol that shot Johnny, their patrol was blocked forward from the crowd, raised the gun and fired between these two junctions and the crowd was two shots. Both shots struck a wall above the head of Soldier C. Soldier A cocked his rifle and fired 3 This is based on a reading of the two HET RSRs into the killings of John Copeland and Michael McLarnon. two shots at the man, who fell to the ground. ‘The

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 5

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 5 2/4/19 7:34 PM man was carried away by two people. Soldier A The HET report states, saw someone pick up the pistol and disappear back into the crowd.’4 ‘About 8.40pm on Thursday, October 28, 1971, he [McKeown] was standing at his front door when (NB. This was the soldiers’ version of what happened he heard someone blowing whistles in Berwick when Johnny was shot. It is contested by the Road. He went to Eskdale Gardens where he saw Copeland family and by the local community, as is soldiers running along Berwick Road across the outlined below.) top of Eskdale Gardens, towards Alliance Avenue. Johnny was taken to the Mater Hospital at 9.30pm There were also people in the area of Strathroy on Thursday 28th October 1971, when he was Park rattling bin lids. He did not hear any gunshots admitted. Dr J A Allen was on duty; in his statement, at that time. He returned home and saw a crowd Dr Allen said John had been hit by ‘a high velocity of about 30 youths who threw stones and bottles missile’. John was conscious, but his pulse was at the army. The youths came out of the alleyway weak, and he had a small wound to the right of his three doors down from his house. midline in the abdomen, which Dr Allen recorded as ‘The soldiers were at the garden wall of 83 a possible entry wound. There was a larger wound, Northwick Drive. They fired five baton rounds and ‘overlying his lower ribs and two wounds in his left arm two live rounds towards the crowd7. Mr McKeown just below his elbow’. had previously served in the army for seven years At 10.15pm John was taken to the operating and from his experience he knew the difference theatre where he had his spleen and left kidney between the sound of live rounds and rubber removed. The surgeons did not find a bullet during bullets being fired.’8 the operation. The following day John’s condition deteriorated, and he died at 6.30pm on Saturday Charles McDonald did not make a statement to the 30th October 1971. The following day, John’s brother, RUC, but he attended the inquest and his deposition James, identified John’s body to Detective Sergeant was written down by the coroner. His testimony is of Patterson at the Belfast City Mortuary.5 particular significance because he was standing right next to Johnny when he was shot. The RSR states, Civilian Witness Accounts of how John Copeland was killed ‘On Thursday, October 28,1971 he [McDonald] was at home when he heard a ‘commotion’ outside and There were four civilian witnesses who made went out to see what was happening. He went statements in relation to the death of John to the junction of Duneden Park and Berwick Copeland; Thomas McKeown, Charles McDonald, Road. At that time, he did not know the army George Hagans and Gerald Quinn. was involved. He went to Strathroy Park where Thomas McKeown gave a deposition at the he saw John. John asked Mr McDonald what inquest into the death of Michael McLarnon6 (he was happening, and he told him that he did not was shot and killed in Etna Drive shortly before know. They both walked towards the entry where John Copeland). However, his deposition was not a ‘sizeable’ crowd were throwing things towards included in the inquest into the killing of John that entry. Copeland. The HET in their report said the deposition ‘Mr McDonald said, ‘When we got up close we of Thomas McKeown was relevant as it described the saw there were soldiers there. John turned to come circumstances leading up to John Copeland’s death. back and I turned also. John stumbled and fell, and I helped Mr Hagans carry him along Strathroy Park.’ 4 HET report page 6 ‘He did not see John with a firearm or anything in 5 HET report page 16 6 Michael McLarnon was killed the same night as John Copeland and the HET believe he may have been shot by a soldier from Soldier A’s patrol when a soldier fired two shots 7 Probably the shots that killed Michael McLarnon above the heads of rioters. 8 HET report pages 7 and 8

6 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 6 2/4/19 7:34 PM A map prepared for the inquest into John’s death with the junction where he was shot marked in red - by RFJ

his hand. He stated that if John had fired two shots the junction of Strathroy Park and Berwick Drive. from a pistol he would have seen it. He did not see John was wearing a mustard coloured pullover anything lying on the pavement after John fell.’9 and Mr Hagans could see that he was not carrying any kind of weapon. George Hagans made a written deposition and gave ‘He said, ‘As Johnny ran around the corner into evidence at John Copeland’s inquest. The HET report Berwick Road the crowd ran back. He seemed to states, turn himself and then he fell. I heard him shout, I’m hit with a rubber bullet.’ ‘About 9.00pm on Thursday, October 28, 1971 ‘Mr Hagans and another man, who he only knew he was at home when he heard a ‘commotion’ by sight, picked John up and took him to a house coming from down Strathroy Park. He went to in Strathroy Park. He could see John had a hole in the door and saw people rioting in Etna Drive. He his back and was bleeding badly.’10 heard rubber bullets being fired. He went back into his home; his wife was at the garden gate Gerald Quinn made a written deposition and gave and the door was open. About five to ten minutes evidence at the inquest. The HET report states, later he heard a crowd running up the street. He went out and ran up the street to the corner of ‘About 8.00pm on Thursday, October 28, 1971 he Strathroy Park and Berwick Road. There were was at home with his wife and family when he soldiers in the entry between Strathroy Park and heard a ‘commotion’ at the back of his house. He Northwick Drive who were firing rubber bullets at went to the scullery and he could see four soldiers the crowd. He saw John was running up towards in his back yard. He thought they were from the Green Howards and one of them was very young. 9 HET report pages 8 and 9 10 HET report page 9

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 7

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 7 2/4/19 7:34 PM Aerial view of Ardoyne in the late 1980s

The younger soldier was near the window, the thought were rubber bullets being fired. The others around the yard. Another soldier was in crowd ran down the street shouting, ‘They’re the entry door leading to Mr Quinn’s yard. He later (expletive) well shooting and it’s not rubber bullets.’ saw that the entry door to his back yard was off its ‘He heard a man shout, “I’ve been hit with a rubber hinges. He went upstairs to get a better view and bullet” and he saw two men carrying John down could see other soldiers in the alleyway between the street towards him. As they passed he could see Strathroy Park and Northwick Drive. There were there was a lot of blood on John’s light-coloured also soldiers in the alleyway between Cranbrook pullover and that he was badly injured. Mr Quinn Gardens and Estoril Park. The two alleyways said, ‘When John was going up into the crowd he was faced each other. All the soldiers were armed with definitely not armed as far as I could see, He certainly rifles.11 did not have a firearm in his hand.’’12 ‘After checking on his children he went out of his front door. There were other people at their All three civilian witnesses said that John was not doors and there were several boys and women armed and they all stated that he was near the at the corner of Berwick Road and Strathroy Park. junction of Strathroy Park and Berwick Road at There was a lot of shouting and some people were the time he was shot. If they are correct, then the making their way up Strathroy Park towards the soldiers in the alleyway between Strathroy Park and junction with Berwick Road. The soldiers were Northwick Drive would not have been able to see firing rubber bullets. He saw John going up the far John from their position. Soldiers A and B both said side of Strathroy Park towards the junction with that they saw a man with a gun at the junction of Berwick Road. Berwick Road and Estoril Park, which was directly ‘Mr Quinn shouted to him to see if he knew opposite Strathroy Park and diagonally opposite the what was going on. John replied, “I don’t know, soldiers. that’s what I’m going to see.” As John reached the junction there were two bangs which Mr Quinn

11 HET report page 10 12 HET report page 10

8 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 8 2/4/19 7:34 PM Soldiers’ statements regarding the At this point the HET comments on Soldier A’s death of John Copeland statement as follows:

Three members of the Green Howards Regiment, ‘From the back doorway of 1, Northwick Drive Soldiers A, B and C made written statements on it would have been impossible for Soldier A Friday 29th October 1971 to the Royal Military Police to watch the crowd at the junction of Berwick Special Investigations Branch (RMP/SIB). A Sergeant Road and Estoril Park due to the buildings in from the RMP/SIB took the statements from soldiers front of him. He would have to have been at the A, B and C. He took possession of a blood-stained back doorway leading to the back yard of that cigarette packet from Soldier A and forwarded it to address.14 the forensic science laboratory, Belfast. A Corporal from the RMP/SIB was also present when the The HET continue their summary of the soldier’s statements from A, B and C were taken. testimony as follows, Soldier A was the platoon commander of the Green Howards and he had left Flax Street Mill barracks ‘He saw a young man, who was part of the crowd, at 8.09pm on Thursday 28th October to carry out a throwing missiles at the patrol. He described him routine patrol in Ardoyne. His patrol numbered 10 as 5’ 6’ slim, dressed in jeans. He said, ‘This man soldiers. Soldier A said that as his patrol approached then moved forward slightly in front of the crowd Northwick Drive he saw that there were several and I saw he had a pistol in his right hand. He then people ahead of him. He led his patrol into the raised his arms and fired two shots at my patrol. The garden of 83, Northwick Drive and past the gable bullets struck the wall just above the head of Soldier end of the house. A woman came out of the house C who was standing at the mouth of the alleyway. and started shouting at him. She then went to the I immediately cocked my SLR and fired two quick back of the house and started banging a dustbin lid. rounds at the gunman who fell to the ground in the A crowd started to gather, and they threw stones and gutter. The crowd continued stoning us not having bottles at the soldiers. realised that this man had been shot.’15 Soldier A said he and his patrol left the garden ‘Soldier A said a tall man took hold of the man as crowds were gathering in Northwick Drive and who had been shot and dragged him away. The Strathroy Park near the junction with Etna Drive. gunman had dropped the pistol when he was Soldier A’s patrol fired several rubber bullets at the shot but Soldier A was not able to recover it crowds to try and disperse them. He moved his because of the hostile crowd. He saw a man pick patrol into an alleyway that ran between Northwick up the pistol and disappear into the crowd.16 Drive and Strathroy Park and made their way towards ‘When the crowd left the scene Soldier A made Berwick Road. He believed the crowd were waiting a search of the area and found a small pool of for his patrol at Berwick Road and that he was fully blood where the man had been shot. He dipped expecting and was prepared for a gunman to fire on his finger in the blood and rubbed it on a cigarette them. packet. He later gave this to the RMP/SIB. The RMP/SIB later showed a photograph of John The RSR states, Copeland to Soldier A. He identified him as the man he had shot’.17 ‘Soldier A took up a position in the back doorway of 1 Northwick Drive from where he watched the Soldier B was section commander in the Green crowd at the junction of Estoril Park and Berwick Howards and was part of the same patrol as Soldier Road who were still throwing stones.’13 A. He said that when they were in the alleyway

14 HET report page 12 15 HET report page 12 16 HET report page 12 13 HET report page 12 17 HET report page12 and 13

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 9

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 9 2/4/19 7:34 PM Ardoyne, from the Bone, looking towards the Belfast hills

between Northwick Drive and Strathroy Park the ‘He stated that the gunman had been about 20 crowd lit them up with high powered torches. This yards away and visibility was good. He was unable put the patrol in danger and they fired four rubber to describe the gunman as the incident happened bullets at the crowd on several occasions. so quickly.’20

The RSR states, Soldier C was a section commander in the Green Howards. He oversaw one section of the patrol and ‘Soldier B was in the back-yard doorway of 5 Soldier B oversaw the other section. Soldier C said Northwick Drive. Soldier A was four to five yards in that his patrol was hemmed in by the crowd at both front of him and Soldier C was in the entrance to ends of the alleyway. The crowd were throwing stones the alleyway near to Berwick Road. The remainder and bottles and using torches to illuminate them. As of the patrol were in the alleyway behind those he and his patrol were about to leave the alleyway, three soldiers. Their intention was to cover Soldier he claims that he saw two muzzle flashes out of the C’s section as they crossed Berwick Road into the corner of his eye. He jumped back into the alleyway opposite alleyway.18 and Soldier A fired two shots in the direction of Estoril ‘Soldier B said, ‘Before this move could be carried Park. He went back to the alleyway entrance and saw out I saw a male person on the junction of Berwick people in the crowd drag a body down Strathroy Park. road and Estoril Park. This person fired two shots at the mouth of the alleyway with a pistol. I saw (Soldier The RSR states regarding Soldier C’s statement, A) fire two shots with his SLR at the gunman. The gunman immediately dropped to the ground. The ‘It is not clear if Soldier C saw two muzzle flashes crowd surrounded the gunman and dragged him come from the crowd at the junction of Estoril Park away from the junction down Strathroy Park.’19 or from the crowd at the junction with Cranbrook Gardens. However, he said that he was looking 18 HET report page 14 19 HET report page 14 20 HET report page 14

10 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 10 2/4/19 7:34 PM towards Cranbrook Gardens when he saw the Johnny were responsible.23 Burrage also said that it flashes out of the corner of his eye. That would was a common practice to shoot out streetlights in suggest the flashes came from the direction of Ardoyne using their own personal weapons for this Estoril Park. He did not say that the two shots hit purpose; including for shooting at people in Ardoyne. the wall above his head as described by Soldier A.’21 Having used a non-issue weapon, a Smith and Wesson revolver, to shoot at a person (shortly before However, as we have already outlined, the four civilian the moment he fired and claimed the shots that killed witnesses at the scene all said that John did not have a Michael McLarnon and injured Margaret McGrandle), gun and was not involved in the rioting. The accounts Burrage told the HET that “…the army frowned upon of Soldiers A, B and C are at odds with those witness soldiers taking non-issue army weapons on patrol statements and with each other. Moreover, there is no but it was common practice at the time” 24. Though direct evidence other than from Soldiers A, B and C Burrage made no reference in his original statement that John fired a shot. following the killing of Michael McLarnon and There are further points that that emerge from the wounding of Margaret McGrandle to the use of his soldiers’ accounts relating to visibility and the use Smith and Wesson revolver. of non-British army-issue weapons, when read in It could well be argued that this provides an insight conjunction with accounts of soldiers from the other into the thinking - possibly a coordinated effort patrol that night.22 - by senior British army officers on the ground to It is clear that two patrols left their barracks in Flax St collectively punish the residents and community at approximately 8.09pm on the evening of October of Ardoyne by randomly shooting them and then 28th. It would already have been dark with the branding them as gunmen and gunwomen. shooting occurring some twenty minutes afterwards. That the shooting took place in an alleyway, that Post-mortem examination into the didn’t benefit from street lighting, would have most death of John Copeland certainly made the situation even less visible. On Monday 1st November 1971 Dr Marshall, the Soldier ‘B’ also stated that the ‘crowd lit them up with state pathologist conducted a post mortem on John high powered torches’ thus indicating that it was dark Copeland. He recorded the cause of death as, ‘a bullet and that the patrol was not visible yet he goes into to wound to the chest and abdomen.’ say that ‘visibility was good’ in respect to identifying The HET summarised the autopsy findings as follows: and shooting the alleged ‘gunman’ though he couldn’t describe him. ‘A single bullet had entered the outer side of his In his book Faith and Duty (about which more left elbow and emerged on the inner side of that later) soldier ‘A’ states that most of the streetlights elbow. It had then entered the side of his trunk just in Ardoyne were broken and of those that weren’t below his ribs and emerged at the left of his spine the British soldiers ‘shot’ them out so as to make in the small of his back.’25 themselves less visible. He further writes to do so they used personal weapons and ammunition they had purchased that were untraceable. Lieutenant Burrage was in the accompanying patrol that evening in Ardoyne and involved in separate shootings. He has always claimed that he killed Michael McLarnon, though it seems more likely that earlier warning shots from the patrol that killed An image of a high-velocity self-loading rifle used by the British army

21 HET report pages 14 and 15 23 Ibid, p. 11. 22 These can be found in the HET report into the killing of 24 Ibid, p 34. Michael McLarnon, see below. 25 HET report page 16

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 11

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 11 2/4/19 7:34 PM ‘His spleen and left kidney had been removed patrol, were referred to during the inquest. It was in an emergency operation and he died 45 hours common practice at inquests then for soldiers to after having been shot due to the effects of the give evidence anonymously. Their names were initial wound and complications.’26 erased from their depositions (statements) and ‘[Dr Marshall] stated that the character of the were replaced by a letter of the alphabet; hence gunshot wounds indicated that the bullet was of the terms Soldier A, B and C in John’s case. The high velocity.’27 coroner was normally passed a slip of paper with ‘Dr Marshall concluded that if John had been the name, rank, regiment and service number of standing erect when he was shot, the bullet the soldier. At the completion of the inquest, the would have travelled horizontally from in front coroner would hand the note back to the military. of him and from his left at about 3’ 6’’ above the It was military policy to destroy the slip of paper ground.’28 after the coroner had returned it to them.

Therefore, this record tends to support the civilian Failure to conduct a proper accounts of how John Copeland was shot rather investigation in compliance with than the soldiers’ version. This hugely significant the obligations under Article 2 piece of evidence was available immediately of the European Court of Human after Johnny’s death. Yet it never formed a line of Rights (ECHR) enquiry in the RUC investigation.

Inquest proceedings into the death of John Copeland

The inquest into John Copeland’s death was held on Thursday 2nd November 1972 at the County Courthouse, Crumlin Road, Belfast. The coroner was Mr JHS Elliot. The jury returned an open verdict. The term open verdict was used by coroners’ courts in the north of Ireland at the time; it was given when a killing where no-one had been held to account by way of a criminal prosecution. The The European Court of Human Rights which has outlined coroner, after hearing the evidence, would not the law applying to state killings during the conflict apportion blame in the matter of the death, but would be required to establish the time, day, date The UK is a signatory to the European Convention and the cause of death. As a result, an open verdict on Human Rights (ECHR) and as such this places would have been declared.29 certain legal obligations on the UK whereby they Charles McDonald, George Hagans and Gerald must uphold and protect citizens human rights; Quinn all made written depositions and gave not least Article 2 – The Right To Life. Where Article evidence at John Copeland’s inquest. The 2 of the ECHR is violated then this requires an statements of the soldier who fired the fatal shot, independent, effective, prompt and sufficiently as well as two other soldiers who were part of his transparent investigation into deaths and killings both involving and implicating state agencies. 26 HET report page 16 27 HET report page 16 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has specified that with respect to cases involving State 28 HET report page 16 and 17 agencies, those responsible for the deaths must be 29 The Coroners’ (Practice and Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1980 replaced verdicts with the term made properly accountable by way of an effective findings at inquests in Northern Ireland, allowing coroners investigation and, if necessary, a prosecution. Any to give more of a commentary on the circumstances of a death than had previously been the case. deficiency in the investigation process, which

12 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 12 2/4/19 7:35 PM undermines this, is unlikely to comply with Article 2 In the period between 1970-73 an agreement was standards. The British government has been found reached between the General Officer Commanding in breach of Article 2 of the ECHR in relation to of the British army in the North and the Chief several cases in the north of Ireland. Constable of the RUC, whereby in an investigation This point was further underlined when in into the use of lethal force by the British army, November 2014 then European Commissioner the interviewing of soldiers would be carried out for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, visited Belfast by the army’s own Royal Military Police (RMP). and addressed a conference. Having previously Therefore, the RUC did not conduct any interviews met with Relatives for Justice and families he said with British soldiers who were involved in the the UK government was breaching the European killing of civilians. Professor Patricia Lundy, who Convention of Human Rights in respect to carried out research into the PSNI HET review investigations into state killings. processes and procedures in Royal Military Police He said they were doing so by not conducting Investigations, the so-called, ‘RMP cases’, states the effective, independent and reasonably prompt following in her research paper, investigations into the killings, adding; ‘The role of the RMP officer seems simply to “Article two, the right to life, is one of the core record the facts as described by the soldier, rights.” rather than to probe or question with a view “It involves not only the state’s responsibility to ascertaining whether the action had been to protect people from unlawful death, but also justified or whether the soldiers’ actions were the responsibility to investigate effectively the lawful. The procedure appears to have been circumstances of the death and punish those to question soldiers as witnesses, rather than responsible. It is an absolute obligation.” to interrogate them as suspects, thereby dispensing with the need for formal cautions. Referring to British army killings Mr Muižnieks said; The adequacy of RMP investigations was examined in the Saville Inquiry; the following “I’m concerned. I think far too long a period has evidence from a military witness captures the passed before people have received justice and statement taking process: “It was not a formal information about the fate of their loved ones and procedure. I always wore civilian clothing and the about the fate of these cases,” soldier was usually relaxed. We usually discussed “The UK government cannot wash its hands the incident over sandwiches and tea”. 31 of the investigations, including funding of the investigations. These are the most serious human The RUC/RMP agreement was a significant rights violations. usurpation of the police responsibility for the “Until now there has been virtual impunity for investigation of crime when the suspects were the state actors involved and I think the (UK) soldiers. The then Lord Chief Justice Lord Lowry government has a responsibility to uphold its criticised the agreement which he said curtailed obligations under the European Convention to the functions of the police investigation and fund investigations and to get the results. undermined the workings of the criminal justice “The issue of impunity is a very, very serious one system: and the UK government has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. This is not just an issue of ‘We learnt that from September 1970 an RUC dealing with the past, it has to do with upholding Force Order was in operation whereby if an the law in general.”30 offence against the ordinary criminal law

31 Extract from, Assessment of the HET Review Processes and Procedures in Royal Military Police Investigation Cases by Dr 30 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29941766 Patricia Lundy

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 13

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 13 2/4/19 7:35 PM was alleged against the military personnel in The RSR into John Copeland’s death shows that Northern Ireland the interviewing of military there were conflicting accounts given by Soldiers witnesses and the alleged offender himself A, B and C when compared with those of the was conducted exclusively by the military civilian witnesses. LCJ Kerr’s comments in relation investigation’.32 to the Thompson case, point to a failure of RMP investigations where discrepancies were not Further criticism of the policy was expressed in further challenged or effectively investigated. It the High Court in Belfast in Thompson v Secretary follows that neither the RMP process nor the HET of State, 2003.33 The case involved the shooting review can be considered effective from the point of an unarmed woman, Kathleen Thompson in of view of the state’s Article 2 obligations. the rear garden of her home in Creggan, Derry, The soldiers involved in the killing of John by a member of the Royal Green Jackets. Sir Copeland simply gave accounts of events, there Brian Kerr, then Lord Chief Justice (LCJ) in this was no attempt to probe those accounts, nor was jurisdiction, concluded that the investigation into any attempt made to address inconsistencies Mrs Thompson’s death was not effective and it is between the various accounts. Moreover, when questionable whether the Chief Constable of the the RUC became aware of the civilian witnesses’ RUC had the legal authority to delegate the critical conflicting accounts of how John Copeland was responsibility of interviewing soldiers to the RMP. It killed they should have re-interviewed the soldiers. is worth quoting some of what the then Lord Chief Instead the RUC simply obtained copies of the Justice stated, soldiers’ statements from the RMP and did not subject those statements to further examination or “…. the soldier who effectively discharged the investigation. They did not interview the soldiers shot which caused the death of Mrs Thompson involved in his killing but instead delegated this and those who were with him at the time were responsibility to the RMP. Therefore, discrepancies interviewed by a member of the Royal Military in the soldiers’ statements were not subject to Police. I do not consider that this satisfied further challenge or investigation. the duty imposed on the police at the time to properly investigate this fatal shooting. In my RUC failures in the investigation view, it was not open to them to delegate this into the murder of John Copeland critical responsibility to another agency such as the Royal Military Police. Quite apart from that The original investigation was carried out by a however, the fact that each of the interviews Detective Sergeant Patterson who was based at cannot have lasted any more than half an hour; Tennant Street RUC station. As the HET comments, the fact that clear discrepancies appear in the it appears to have been the practice of the RUC statements made, discrepancies which have during this period to allow relatively junior officers not been the subject of further challenge or to oversee homicide investigations and to have investigation, are sufficient to demonstrate the a more senior officer supervise the investigation. inadequacy of the investigation into the death RUC Detective Inspector Houston was the senior of the deceased…By any standard it is clear officer who oversaw the investigation into John that the investigation into the death of Mrs Copeland’s killing. Thompson was not effective.”34 The normal practice in an investigation, especially where someone has been shot dead, would be to seal off the area and examine the crime scene. This 32 In R v Foxford {1974} NI 181 Lord Lowry 33 Kerr.J, In the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, would involve a search for spent cartridge cases, Queen’s Bench Division (Judicial Review), In the Matter of an bullet heads, bullet strike marks as it was claimed Application by Mary Louise Thompson For Judicial Review, Ref:KERA3639T by soldier C that the two shots allegedly fired by 34 Ibid

14 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 14 2/4/19 7:35 PM Eddie holds his father’s pullover at a public meeting during Feile an Phobail in 2015

Johnny struck the wall above the head of where and make statements. Persistent reliance on the soldier A was standing. Indeed, the alleged strike excuse of context is as worn out as the catalogue of marks could have been quite easily checked at any unfounded claims that civilians who were shot by given time. The fact that such normal enquiries the British army had in fact been armed and that were not carried out supports the view that soldiers were returning fire. there was at best a general ambivalence towards Notwithstanding the difficulties the RUC would such killings by the authorities as part of a wider have faced back in 1971, they made no real effort investigative bias. Other actions the police should to properly and effectively investigate the killing of have carried out include, conducting house to John Copeland even though there were witnesses house enquiries, interviewing and taking civilian in the case. The fact that the RMP interviewed witness statements and making a photographic the soldiers rather than the police was a major record of the crime scene. However, none of flaw in the investigation. Furthermore, the RMP this took place into the death of John Copeland. interviewed Soldiers A, B and C without having Normally this is attributed to the ‘context of the access to either the civilian witness statements times’ in which the RUC were operating. That is to or other potential evidence the police may have say the RUC would have found it difficult to carry obtained. As seen with the Saville Enquiry into out a proper police investigation in Ardoyne given the Bloody Sunday killings by members of the the political and civil unrest at the time. Parachute Regiment, this flawed approach actually Nevertheless, the RUC were quite able to sustain became normal practice for British army killings. an on the ground presence to conduct regular raids That Enquiry found that soldiers involved in fatal and make arrests. Therefore, one would expect shooting incidents were interviewed by the RMP that conducting an effective investigation into without any formal caution (i.e. treating a soldier the fatal shooting of a local man would certainly as a suspect) or comparing their statements with have attracted less hostility and should have civilian witness statements or other evidence been tried – even with community and clerical obtained by the police. support. After all, witnesses did come forward

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 15

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 15 2/4/19 7:35 PM As the HET report states, Unfortunately, the HET was closed down before such an interview could take place. As far as the ‘What could have been done, and what should Copeland family and RFJ are concerned such an have been done, at the very least, was to have interview remains necessary. the soldiers re-interviewed as soon as it became There were other failures in the investigation apparent to the investigating officer that there which included; was conflict between the accounts given by civilian witnesses and those given by the • an incorrectly taken blood sample that was soldiers. The question of the possible culpability submitted by the RMP for examination. for John’s homicide needed to be properly determined. This could only be done by a • no record of post mortem photographs. thorough investigation, including a penetrating interview of all the witnesses who so far had • no record of any scientific examination of John’s only made the briefest of statements.’35 clothing.

The HET report also refers to the book Soldier A • no record of his hands being swabbed for traces wrote, ‘Faith and Duty’, under the pseudonym, of firearms residue. Nicky Curtis.36 He describes in the book about coming under fire from a gunman and being under • no record of any fingerprint examination having attack from a hostile crowd shortly before John taken place. Copeland was killed. As the HET states, • no examination or seizure of the weapon fired ‘He was in fear of his life and the lives of by Soldier A. his men. His state of mind at that time was affected by what confronted them and being The blood sample was the only exhibit in the in charge he had to act in a positive manner to investigation file. This was blood on a cigarette retain the confidence of the soldiers under his packet taken from the scene by Soldier A. He command.’37 later handed it to the RMP/SIB who took it to the forensic science laboratory. The HET report continues, The HET report refers to this item in their review of the case and states, ‘An in-depth interview of the soldiers by the RUC would have explored exactly what was going ‘The HET has made enquiries with the Forensic through the soldier’s mind at the very moment Science Laboratory of Northern Ireland and a he decided it was necessary to use lethal force. Senior Forensic Scientist Dr Ruth Griffin stated Every aspect of the army rules of engagement that it is doubtful that this sample would have should have been examined. Also, if grounds been examined due to the way it was obtained. were to emerge to suspect that a criminal offence She said that obtaining blood in this way would had been committed by a soldier, then a suspect not have been recommended practice’.39 interview under caution would have been necessary.’38 The HET could not locate any photographs in the police file and they were not able to establish why there were no post mortem photographs 35 HET report page 25 available almost 12 months after John Copeland 36 Faith and Duty by Nicky Curtis was first published in 1998. It was killed for his inquest. There is no record of any is Soldier A’s account of his time as a soldier in the North of Ireland. 37 HET report page 39 38 HET report page 42 39 HET report page 29

16 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 16 2/4/19 7:35 PM Gxxxxxx Cxxxxxxxx

Soldier A’s book Faith and Duty and his ‘tour of duty’ in Ardoyne

The HET report also refers to the book Soldier A wrote, ‘Faith and Duty’, under the pseudonym, “Nicky Curtis”.40 It is Soldier A’s account of his time as a soldier in the north of Ireland. He describes in the book about coming under fire from a examination of John Copeland’s clothes or hands gunman and being under attack from a hostile for firearms residue. If there had have been an crowd shortly before John Copeland was killed. examination of John’s hands and clothing it could It is clear that, if “Nicky Curtis” is indeed Soldier A, have gone some way towards establishing if he then the HET viewed the experience he describes had fired a weapon. as relevant to any proper investigation into what Some of the clothing John was wearing had been happened when John Copeland was shot. kept by the family and a forensic examination was The HET established that the book was indeed carried out on this as part of the HET review of written by Soldier A and in the HET RSR they report the case. In May 2011 Jonathan Greer a forensic that they had traced Soldier A and had spoken to scientist examined the clothing on behalf of the him. At a meeting with Soldier A in February 2011, HET. His examination found that the holes in he told the HET investigating officers to read his John’s clothing along with the witness statements book as all his recollections of his time in the north suggest that John Copeland may have been of Ireland were recorded in it.41 turning or was already turned away from the army 40 Nicky Curtis, Faith and Duty, André Deutsch, 2003. when he was shot. 41 HET report page 29

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 17

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 17 2/4/19 7:35 PM In chapter 3 of his book, titled “The Obedient evidence from the post-mortem, showed Soldier Dead”, Soldier A recalls his time stationed in A’s account of what took place was false and that Ardoyne. He writes about his interpretation of Johnny Copeland had been murdered in cold blood. the rules of engagement (known as the Yellow Card42). One extract from the book describes what Failure of the RUC to keep the Soldier A’s opinion of the Yellow Card was and how family informed of developments he was going to replace it with the ‘Curtis Rules of in the murder investigation Engagement’. As he says, ‘I decided to come up with our own plans for getting out of here alive’.43 The failure of the RUC to inform and update families was a feature of many RUC investigations He goes on to say, from this period. There was clearly no communication with the family to keep them ‘One day I decided I’d had enough and came up with informed of the investigation in terms of a new plan of action. I thought, well, why don’t we identifying suspects, evidence gathering and cut through the crap of the first stages and get the potential arrests. Maintaining contact with the big boys out in the open as soon as possible. Get it family and involving them in the investigation is over and done with and see who’s left standing.’ a clear duty under case law arising from Article 2 of the ECHR. The Copeland family were left What he seems to be suggesting is to provoke IRA completely uninformed of what investigation was personnel into showing themselves so that an undertaken and what progress may have been ultimate showdown can take place, as if the Wild made. Indeed, the RUC may have intentionally West had arrived in north Belfast! It suggests a withheld information from them. This is something soldier who is out of control. that cannot be determined without a proper RFJ believes that Soldier A’s real name is Gxxxxx independent investigation. Cxxxxxxxx. The biographical details of this individual on the Green Howards regiment website match that Complaint to the Police of Soldier A. From a Catholic background he first Ombudsman into the joined the Colchester regiment before becoming a circumstances surrounding John member of the Green Howards. He was deployed Copeland’s murder in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Kenya and Cyprus and had several tours of duty in the north of Ireland, which included undercover military operations. Like Soldier A, he was also awarded the Military Medal for his services with the British army in the north of Ireland. Furthermore, both Soldier A and this individual come from Yorkshire in the north of England. It is important to note that Soldier A was honoured a mere three months after he murdered Johnny Copeland and the patrol for which he was responsible murdered Michael McLarnon. This was at a time when eye-witness testimony, and clear-cut Dr Michael Maguire, Police Ombudsman The Copeland family now want a proper

42 Rules of engagement (yellow card) were instructions all independent investigation into what the RUC soldiers received about the circumstances in which they failed to do. They accordingly have asked the were authorised to use firearms. These instructions were known as the rule of engagement and the rules were Police Ombudsman to exercise his powers to printed on a yellow card which was issued to and had to be carry out such an investigation. RFJ on behalf carried always by each soldier. of the Copeland family have supported them in 43 Curtis, op cit, p. 40.

18 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 18 2/4/19 7:35 PM compiling a written complaint to the Ombudsman PSNI to investigate the death of John Copeland. setting out the failures in the original RUC flawed The Copeland family has also been pursuing civil investigation. These include, litigation against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) regarding the unlawful killing of their husband and • the RUC failed to carry out a thorough and father. impartial investigation into Johnny’s killing; • the RUC failed to properly interview and Conclusion investigate the soldiers who were involved in It is 46 years since the death of John Copeland, Johnny’s death; yet there has never been anyone convicted for • the investigation conducted into Johnny’s the murder. The Copeland family were never kept death did not comply with the obligations informed of the investigation, they never heard demanded under Article 2 of the European anything from any official source since the time of Convention of Human Rights; the shooting. In their view, there was no proper • the RUC failed to keep the family informed of investigation, no serious attempt to arrest and developments in the investigation. charge the killers and no effort to keep the family informed of the progress in the case. The Copeland family have also asked the Police The impact on the Copeland family must also be Ombudsman to investigate why the RUC never acknowledged, Carol lost her husband and was interviewed Soldier A regarding his book, ‘Faith and left as a young mother on her own to raise two Duty’, the account of his time in the British army. children. In the book, ‘Ardoyne the Untold Truth’ a In the Copeland family’s view, the author’s account book that commemorates those killed in Ardoyne in chapter seven (A Corporal’s War) of his book through the voices of those who knew them best, needs to be properly assessed and he needs to be Carol Copeland speaks of the impact on losing her interviewed under caution concerning conflicting husband Johnny, accounts (in his deposition and his book) of what took place. “I was wrecked and totally devastated by Other legal avenues pursued by Johnny’s death. We really had nothing. We the Copeland family were young and only married when the trouble started. The one thing that I will never ever Supported by RFJ, the Copeland family and their forget is being left with two wee kids. It was solicitors, KRW Law, applied to the Attorney desperate. Basically, I was left on my own with General under section 14 of the Coroner’s Act to two kids. No government agency came near have a fresh inquest into John Copeland’s death. me. I never saw the social services. I was on a The application was made in December 2013 but widow’s pension and all I got was about £11 a was refused by the Attorney General in March week. You were left with nothing. It was terrible 2014. Since the release of the draft HET report by for about a year. I think I lost about a year or the PSNI’s Legacy Investigation Branch (LIB) more more. I can’t remember now.”44 information has come to light in the case. A new civilian witness has been identified and the identity When one takes into consideration that Soldier A’s of Soldier A who shot John Copeland is now regiment had lost five members in the Ardoyne known. Based on this new information KRW Law area; the mental state of soldier A; his claims in the have written to the Attorney General asking for him book ‘Faith and Duty’ about ‘who’d be left standing’, to revisit his original decision of March 2014. then we can better determine the intentions of In response to the new application for an inquest the Attorney General has written to the Public 44 Ardoyne the Untold Truth is a book about 99 Ardoyne Prosecution Service asking them to direct the people who lost their lives because of the political conflict. It was compiled by the Ardoyne Commemoration Project.

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 19

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 19 2/4/19 7:35 PM soldier A. He is clearly out of control and intent on away their actions and to avoid prosecution. exacting revenge on the Ardoyne community. All the civilian witness statements contradict the • It is a well-established pattern for soldiers accounts of soldiers A, B, and C in that Johnny involved in fatal shootings to claim that was not armed and that the only shots fired shots were fired at them first and of course were by Soldier A. There is also the matter of once this lie is told it naturally follows that inconsistencies in the statements between soldiers. other lies must be told concerning the It is clear from the HET RSR that it was physically ‘alleged’ weapon etc. and geographically impossible for them to have witnessed what they claimed to have seen given • There was no effective investigation into their positions at the time. Johnny’s murder. If soldier A was able to take time to dip his finger • There were no bullet heads, cartridge casings into fresh blood, still wet where Johnny was shot, or shells recovered even though soldier and put a sample of the blood onto a cigarette A immediately took his own sample of packet then why was he not able to retrieve the Johnny’s blood at the scene. two spent cartridges also presumably at the scene? The civilian witnesses stated that when shots rang • There were no bullet strike marks on the out the crowd ran claiming that live rounds were wall above where soldier A was standing to being fired; nobody was hanging around, they indicate and substantiate claims by soldier were running in fear of their lives. C that Johnny Copeland, or anyone else for that matter, fired two shots which struck the The evidence is conclusive; wall.

• Johnny Copeland was unarmed. • The HET conclude that it would have been impossible for soldier C to have witnessed • No shots were fired at soldiers. any shooting given his location. • No weapon existed. • Prosecutions should have been taken against soldier A for murder. • The only shots fired were by soldier A.

• Prosecutions should have been taken against • This was a deliberate action without any soldiers B and C for perverting the course of justification whatsoever. justice if not as accomplices to the crime. • Johnny Copeland was deliberately murdered. The Copeland family have campaigned over the • The mindset of Soldier A, by his own years for the truth about how their husband and admissions in his book and notwithstanding father was murdered by the British army. They the inconsistencies in his and other soldiers’ are determined to pursue all avenues to hold the evidence of the shooting, lends considerably state to account and establish the truth about to the overall view that he was intent on how their loved one was killed. killing someone. Unfortunately for the The ‘official narrative’ is clearly at odds with the Copeland family that was Johnny. evidence and requires correction - the record set straight. According to his book soldier A assisted other person to be killed by the British Army’s SAS during the soldiers involved in fatal shootings in which there conflict. From Belleek in south Armagh, the 25 year-old was shot in highly controversial circumstances yards was no justification for shooting including the from the border near Forkhill in April 1976. He was in the excessive use of force (ref Peter Cleary45), to explain custody of the British soldiers who claimed they shot him as he sought to escape. “Curtis” writes in his book that he gave advice to the killers which assisted them to avoid 45 See pp 244-245, Faith and Duty. Peter Cleary was the first prosecution

20 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 20 2/4/19 7:35 PM Johnny was first and foremost a family man. He and his wife Carol spent time in England training as nurses. Clearly, they were people dedicated to the welfare and care of others. They returned to north Belfast to marry, set-up home and start a family. All this was of course cruelly cut short. A husband, father, brother and son, Johnny was a totally uninvolved and unarmed civilian who was deliberately gunned down in cold blood by a highly trained and armed soldier who was supposed to protect life and uphold the rule of law. Soldier ‘A’, who killed Johnny, was the platoon commander of the Green Howards. This was no ordinary soldier. In his book he describes other criminal acts including how to cover for fatal shootings, much in the way he also sought to cover for killing Johnny. Indeed, he unashamedly boasts about such events in his book. The Copeland family and RFJ contend that Carol and Johnny soldier ‘A’ acted with deliberate intention the night he shot Johnny and thereafter concocted a series Copeland, and indeed other uninvolved civilians, of lies; other soldiers under his command were were unjustifiably killed. This too must be factored actively complicit in the lie. The killing was never into any fresh investigation. Indeed, in his book, properly investigated in a legally and human actions that soldier ‘A’ describes and participates rights compliant way. Soldier ‘A’ should now be in provides an insight into the premeditated questioned under caution in an interview that for mindset of soldier ‘A’. the very first time considers all of the evidence. This too must form a central part of any Soldiers ‘B’ and ‘C’ should also be investigated for investigation. perverting the course of justice. It would be important to note that a fictional As a platoon commander based in Ardoyne book written by Tyrone republican Gerry and having had several colleagues killed in that McGeough was used by the prosecution during area a possible motive for soldier ‘A’ was that he his trial in 2011 for the attempted killing of a part- was keen to exact some form of revenge on that time British soldier. Soldier ‘A’’s book is not fiction same community. The cost of this was that Johnny but rather a memoir.

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 21

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 21 2/4/19 7:35 PM Linda and her mother

Linda and her son, Eddie in the mid-1970’s Baby Linda, daughter of Carol and John

John’s widow, Carol (right), with her son, Eddie Right: Johnny’s grave in Milltown Cemetery

22 relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 22 2/4/19 7:35 PM RFJ’s Remembering quilt, with the panel commemorating Johnny second from left on the bottom row

relatives for justice | john copeland - murdered by the British army, october 1971 23

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 23 2/4/19 7:35 PM John Copeland

“ Until now there has been virtual impunity for the state actors… The UK government cannot wash its hands of the investigations…These are the most serious human rights violations.”

Former European Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks speaking in Belfast November 2014.

Relatives for Justice Relatives for Justice 39 Glen Road 42/44 Irish Street Belfast Dungannon Co Antrim Co. Tyrone BT12 8BB BT70 1DQ

Tel: 028 9062 7171 Tel: 028 8775 1697 Fax: 028 9062 7173 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.relativesforjustice.com

R e l a t i v e s f o r J u s t i c e i s f u n d e d b y t h e V i c t i m s a n d S u r v i v o r s S e r v i c e

24 relatives for justice | patrick mulvenna and james Bryson - killed by the British army, 31th august 1973

John Copeland Rep DEC 2018.indd 24 2/4/19 7:35 PM