31st October 2021
My column in Prospect this month is on the ‘licences to kill’ that exist in the law of the United Kingdom.
But in case any person thinks that article is alarmist or somehow academic in averring the existence of such provisions and their implications, reference should be made to the circumstances of the death of Pat Finucane.
These circumstances are not as well known as they should be, and they should inform any consideration of the law and practice of lethal force by or on behalf of the United Kingdom.
These are three things to know.
First: the lawyer Pat Finucane was killed in 1989.
Second: in 2012, Sir Desmond Da Silva, the author of a government-commissioned report, concluded:
“Overall, I am left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the State. […]
“The real importance, in my view, is that a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder and that, in the aftermath of the murder, there was a relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice.”
(Paragraph 115 here.)
Third: the then prime minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron admitted and apologised for this collusion:
“The collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agencies in murder, is totally unacceptable.
“We do not defend our security forces, or the many who have served in them with great distinction, by trying to claim otherwise.
“Collusion should never, ever happen.
“So on behalf of the Government, and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family, I am deeply sorry.”
(Column 297 here.)
*
There is, of course, a lot more that should be known about the killing of Pat Finucane by anyone interested in the history of Northern Ireland and in the history of the United Kingdom state.
But it should be more widely known that there is no doubt that the United Kingdom state colluded in the death of a civilian and the United Kingdom state has admitted and apologised for its collusion in this death.
This is therefore not the extreme accusation of some anti-government agitator but the confirmed position of the United Kingdom state itself.
*
And so the possibility is not fanciful that powers and immunities that the United Kingdom state confers upon itself may be misused by the United Kingdom state.
The possibility of misuse is such that there should be anxious scrutiny of these powers and immunities.
The United Kingdom state does not say that it wants to kill people.
But by granting itself – and its officials and operatives – immunity from any legal liability, it is creating a situation where there is no legal disincentive from ensuring unlawful deaths do not happen.
******
This blog needs your help to continue – each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
The murder of Pat Finucane was one of many I had in mind when I responded to your first article about the state having a ‘licence to kill’.
There have been many requests or demands for a public inquiry into his death; while at one stage the UK government seemed to have agreed to this, they have subsequently backtracked and refused to hold one, most recently in late 2020; and this after the Supreme Court found that the UK had failed to uphold the ECHR. The Secretary of State for N Ireland stated then that “now is not the time”.
Pat Finucane came from a republican family and represented various IRA members, as if this were sufficient justification for his murder. He also, apparently, represented alleged criminals from the “other side”.
It now seems very unlikely that any public inquiry will happen in the near or medium-term, if ever.
His son, John Finucane, who witnessed his father’s murder is now the Sinn Féin MP for North Belfast. His father was a Roman Catholic, his mother is a Protestant.
Whatever states with less scruples get away with, the UK must not allow itself to act outside the principles of public decency
Why start now?
Much of the UK’s success over the centuries has come from acting outside the principles of public decency.
Although I suppose that depends what you mean by “public decency”. Does the decency expected and judged by other races and nations count? Or is “public decency” merely the complacency of Britain’s own people about what has been done elsewhere in the name of their Sovereign?
The undoubted public decency of the UK opposing the Nazis in WW2 (not that the UK had any choice so perhaps decency is the wrong word) nowadays seems conveniently to have eclipsed the UK’s historical role as aggressor and exploiter. Perfidious Albion was an accurate characterisation and has become so again.
In past centuries I doubt public decency would have been aroused by what Britain, or other colonial powers, did. Participation in the slave trade did eventually arouse enough decent opposition to have it abolished, but that was an exception.
The difference post WW2 is that we now acknowledge human rights, nominally at least, under the UN Charter and the ECHR. Therefore the murder of Pat Finucane was undoubtedly an outrage and the legal protection the Government gives itself in such circumstances is abhorrent and indefensible.
“Licenced” killing by agents of the UK government is morally no different to the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. How can the UK Government moralise about the actions of foreign governments when it sanctions such action itself?
This is great work, David. Thanks.
It would be interesting to know which other countries have similar legislation. I am pretty sure Italy doesn’t.
How to hold ‘The State’ to account? The de Menezes case looks like cock-up followed by cover-up. The shameful bit seems to be dragging out the payout for four years and the measly amount. Needed someone high up to knock heads together and if necessary to give one or more people the sack, but quietly. Hard to see how dragging the dirty washing out into the daylight would really help.
The Finucane case looks like dirty politics of the ‘look the other way guv’ kind. The poor man got caught up in state actors playing at a mis-conceived ‘war’ that only continued because it was taking place somewhere that did not matter. To expect justice is to expect The State to mark its own homework. Just possibly something like a truth and reconciliation commission might help. But I very much doubt the state actors involved would cooperate or there would be any way to make them cooperate – they were in too deep.
Espionage is too dirty a business to be left to any other than gentlemen.
But Cameron said he was ‘sorry’ – so that’s all right then.
It is, after all, the ultimate standard response from the UK establishment, when finally caught with ‘fingers in the till’ and nowhere else to go.
(Let the games continue)
There is an older one that got some publicity this week. Documentry on Britains Forgotten Wars this week was Kenya, few weeks previously was Malaysisa. Kenya the massacre was Hola in 1959, 11 dead and 20 plus hospitalsed as British troops attack unarmed prisoners, Malaysia was Batang Kali 1948 24 unarmed prisoners killed.
On both occasions there was some embaressment the American Press might tell the story.
On both occasions no action whatsoever was taken against the perpatrators.