Barron fails by not giving definitive answers on collusion

By Paul T Colgan

14 December 2003

Mr Justice Henry Barron's report into the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings has been criticised for its failure to reach any definite conclusions about collusion between British intelligence and the loyalist bomb teams that carried out the attacks.

The report found no evidence of high-level collusion between British intelligence, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries in the attacks which killed 34 people, although it said it was "likely" that collusion had occurred. The report also criticised the Irish government of the time for its failure to investigate the bombings properly.

"I think the report has done a good job with respect to the Irish government and the guards," said filmmaker Paul Larkin, who has researched the events of May 17, 1974. "However, it appears to have backtracked on other important issues, such as collusion. The report has damaged the quest for truth by not giving definitive answers on collusion.

"It's a red herring to say that the Northern authorities were not involved at a senior level. Many of the loyalists involved in the bombings were members of the RUC and the UDR. "It's also a red herring to say that the Northern Irish authorities had no foreknowledge of the attacks. There were no authorities in the North at the time - the place was in chaos.The Faulkner regime had collapsed. The report fails to recognise that the intelligence agencies were the key players in the North.

"It also claims that the loyalists involved were later interned. That's not the case. Only one loyalist had been interned and that was on a separate charge. The whole lot of them were walking around Portadown.

"The report does not ac-knowledge that the bombings were linked to a campaign to destroy the Sunningdale power-sharing arrangement. The fact is the intelligence authorities set out to destroy the peace process at that time.

"I'm not questioning the diligence or the integrity of Mr Justice Barron, but I think he's naive," Larkin said.

Larkin believes that a military cabal, headed by MI6, assumed control of what Barron termed "friendly guerrillas" in a dirty war against northern nationalists and the southern authorities. Barron acknowledged that he had encountered the same "obstructionism" from British army and police agencies which hampered the work of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens in his probe into collusion in the North."In investigating allegations of collusion in relation to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, this inquiry faces all the problems identified by the Stevens inquiry, with the additional complication that it has no authority or powers within the jurisdiction of the North. Issues of national security, secrecy and bureaucratic reticence are also amplified," said Barron.

The reference to "obstructionism" does not bode well for the prospects of a full judicial inquiry into the bombings. The same "reticence" by the Br itish authorities would probably be copperfastened in the event of a public inquiry. Even if - as many suspect - senior British officers directed loyalists to their southern targets, the current British government is hardly likely to admit its culpability in the bombing of a neighbouring state's capital city.

Aproper judicial inquiry would require the full cooperation of Tony Blair's government, but senior members of his cabinet have already expressed disdain for such inquiries. British foreign secretary Jack Straw outraged the families of those killed by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday when he questioned the need for the Saville inquiry into the shootings.

"We sometimes make a mistake in investing quite the faith that we do in appointing a judicial figure to chair an inquiry of this kind," he said in June. He criticised the inquiry's cost effectiveness, saying it was "now costing s c ores and s cores of millions of pounds."

The publication of the Cory report into six killings north and south of the border may also result in a public inquiry. Both governments have said they will honour retired Canadian judge Peter Cory's recommendations for further investigation. The mounting bill will put pressure on the British government to resort to something resembling a "truth commission" along the same lines as South Africa.

Justice for the Forgotten, a group of relatives of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, believes that a judicial inquiry need not follow the same model as the Saville inquiry. Responding to reports that the Irish government was concerned about the cost of such an option, spokeswoman Margaret Urwin said the relatives were prepared to look at all the options.

"Nobody wants an inquiry as protracted as the Saville inquiry," she said. "We'd like things to move as quickly as possible - but it must be thorough. We have so many members who are elderly. Many of them are in their eighties and they need closure quickly.

"It's a bit premature for the Irish government to be talking about issues of money, as the Dáil joint committee does not report until March. Money shouldn't be an issue anyway. The issue should be the lives of 34 people.This is not about beef or planning corruption. This is a matter of grave importance for every Irish citizen."

If, as the government has already hinted, compensation is to be paid to victims, the British government will be approached for assistance.

Urwin said Barron's report failed to find proof of high-level British collusion with loyalists because he was prevented from doing so. "It seems the British government didn't cooperate with Barron at all. While the PSNI provided him with documents, there was no cooperation from government departments or the Northern Ireland Office.

"It is ironic that Tony Blair should be waging his war against terrorism with regard to al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and yet his government refuses to cooperate with an inquiry set up to deal with such a serious act of terrorism."