British collusion allegations: Relatives of UVF murder victims 'unlawfully denied inquiries'
Relatives of six loyalist paramilitary murder victims are being unlawfully denied public inquiries into their deaths, the High Court heard today.
The British Government has breached their human rights by refusing the only form of independent investigation capable of examining killings shrouded in allegations of security force collusion, it was claimed.
Separate applications for judicial review have been brought by the families of Raymond McCord Jr, Sam Marshall, Kevin and Jack McKearney, and Charles and Teresa Fox.
In 2024 inquests into the murders, all carried out by UVF factions during the 1990s, were halted in 2024 amid issues over sensitive intelligence disclosure and the introduction of the controversial Troubles Legacy Act.
Lawyers representing the victims’ families are now seeking orders compelling Northern Ireland Secretary of State Hilary Benn to establish full public inquiries into the murders.
But counsel for the Government claimed the challenges should be put on hold until after the Supreme Court rules on a legacy investigation commission’s powers and capabilities in dealing with Troubles-era cases.
Former RAF man Raymond McCord Jr, 22, was beaten to death by loyalist paramilitaries before his body was dumped in a quarry outside north Belfast in 1997.
A subsequent police ombudsman probe found evidence of collusion between some Special Branch officers and the UVF terror unit involved in the killing.
His father, the high-profile victims campaigner Raymond McCord, insists that a public inquiry should now be established to uncover the full truth.
The court heard he has been denied proper answers ever since the inquest initially opened before being put on hold back in 2001.
Barrister Martin O’Rouke KC argued there was an ongoing breach of his client’s Article 2 entitlements under the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Mr McCord has now suffered the lack of an investigation for nearly 29 years,” he said.
“At the moment there is no viable mechanism for him to have an investigation into his son’s death (apart from) a public inquiry.”
Mr Justice McLaughlin was told that the campaigner is also seeking damages for the alleged unlawful delay in holding an effective tribunal.
Similar challenges were also mounted by relatives of the other murder victims in inquests were stopped due to issues around disclosing documents under public interest immunity (PII) before the Legacy Act was brought in.
Under the controversial legislation, parts of which were later struck down by the Court of Appeal, responsibility for investigating all conflict-related deaths was to pass to an independent body set to be known as the Legacy Commission.
The court was told that the Article 2 rights of all the bereaved families were at stake.
Kevin McKearney, 32, and his 69-year-old uncle Jack were shot at their family butcher’s shop in Moy, Co Tyrone in January 1992.
Later that year husband and wife Charles and Teresa Fox, aged 63 and 54 respectively, were murdered at their home in the same village.
A UVF unit based in the Mid Ulster area carried out the four killings.
Counsel for the son of Mr and Mrs Fox, Desmond Fahy KC, insisted that ordering public inquiries would not open the floodgates to a deluge of other cases.
“In the 33 years since the murder of his parents there has been no investigation which is compliant with the Article 2 obligation of the state,” the barrister submitted.
“There is a lawful means of addressing that illegality, and that is by a statutory public inquiry.”
Similar proceedings have been brought by the sister of former republican prisoner Sam Marshall.
The 31-year-old was ambushed and shot dead by UVF gunmen after leaving a police station in Lurgan, Co Armagh in March 1990.
Claims of a security force role in the killing centred on the nearby presence of a Maestro car, later found to be a military intelligence vehicle.
Resisting the challenges on behalf of the Secretary of State, Tony McGleenan KC insisted it would be better to wait for the Supreme Court’s determination on the validity of the Government’s legacy proposals.
He argued that a series of other forms of litigation have also been put on hold until that ruling assessment is delivered.
Reserving judgment in the applications for judicial review, Mr Justice McLaughlin pledged to give a decision as soon as possible