Trio of judges in the Court of Appeal throw out RUC 'collusion' case over sectarian UDA double murder

At 7.34am on October 26, 1993, the killers walked in to the Kennedy Way depot with a submachine gun and an assault rifle and sprayed the Catholic workers inside with bullets before escaping in a car. Five others were injured but survived.

It was seen as “retaliation” for the IRA's Shankill bombing, which had killed nine random Protestants three days earlier.

Mr Cameron Jr had argued that there should be a judicial review of the police handling of the case, but that call had been rejected last year by trial judge Mr Justice Humphreys.

His case was taken up by barristers Stephen Toal and Hugh Southey, with help from KRW Law.

Now a trio of judges have rejected his appeal against that decision: Justice Colton, Lord Justice Horner, and Lady Chief Justice Keegan – with the latter delivering the verdict of all three in the Court of Appeal.

The verdict was actually handed down about a fortnight ago, but has gone unreported.

Lady Chief Justice Keegan said “the appellant with the assistance of his solicitor and counsel has been assiduous in putting forward evidence of collusion in other cases”.

But in rejecting this one, she said that “the RUC investigation into the shooting at Kennedy Way was swift and resulted in 16 suspects arrested for their suspected involvement in the murders”.

Two of those arrested were the suspected gunmen, but they did not confess and “there was no forensic evidence connecting them to the murders” said Lady Chief Justice Keegan.

In total, 14 of the 16 suspects were released without charge, and two – Thomas Edward Beggs and Wendy Ann Davies – were convicted.

Beggs admitted to two murder charges, and Davies admitted aiding and abetting. However, neither were thought to have been the shooters.

Mr Cameron Jr complained that, in his view, the RUC “did not take into consideration the probability that members of the RUC and/or British military had acted in connivance with the loyalist paramilitaries responsible by way of direct or incidental assistance in the planning and execution of their murders”.

Evidence presented to the court included the book “Mad Dog: The Rise and Fall of Johnny Adair and ‘C Company'”, in which UDA factional leader Adair was quoted as telling a policeman he was going to “plan a mass murder” after the Shankill bombing.

Mr Cameron Jr also claimed that the VZ-58 rifle used in the attack was imported into Northern Ireland from Lebanon by Brian Nelson, an informer within the ranks of the UDA.

He also argued that since the RUC were aware of a “general threat” against “Catholic depots”, they should have known this meant the Kennedy Way facility, and that a vehicle checkpoint which was often in operation in the area was suspiciously not in place at the time of the shooting.

A previous hearing was told that PSNI temporary detective sergeant Ian Harrison had looked into the case, and identified the following steps were taken by police at the time (among others):

• 104 statements were taken from witnesses;

• 63 statements were taken from police officers;

• 27 houses were searched, with items seized and sent for forensic analysis;

• Besides the 16 suspects with potential links to the shooting, police interviewed another 44 suspects who were believed to be indirectly linked to it;

• And fingerprints recovered were checked against a list of 78 suspect UDA members / associates.

TDS Harrison said that he had not identified “any evidence to support the contention that RUC officers provided assistance to or otherwise colluded in the murder of these innocent civilians”.

And in handing down her judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Keegan said army records do “not support a claim that there was a deliberate lifting of checkpoints to allow the killers of Mr Cameron a free passage to the depot”.

She also noted that the previous judge, Justice Humphreys, had found “the alleged involvement of Brian Nelson is without evidential support,” and she added it was “valid” to say that “much of the evidence” Mr Cameron Jr relied on was “circumstantial” and his conclusions “unsupported”.

Lady Chief Justice Keegan concluded that “we do not find plausible or credible evidence of collusion which would warrant a revival of the investigative obligation in this case”, that there had been “no other lines of inquiry or investigative opportunities identified”, and that “we must reject the appellant’s arguments and affirm the decision of the trial judge”.