Trevor Ringland: We must ask if the legal profession is helping a false narrative about what happened in the Troubles

A letter from Trevor Ringland:

The Law Society of Northern Ireland made a recent submission to the NI Affairs Committee at Westminster on ‘legacy’. That was surprising, because the society postponed its conference on the subject last year, which was set to consider the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

It was regrettable that the Law Society cancelled the conference and delayed a chance for our membership to consider all perspectives on this issue. Particularly given that, after stopping that potential debate, it then made a submission on behalf of its members.

At the time I was going to suggest that delegates should first watch the excellent documentary Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland and Face Down, which deals with the brutal murder of German businessman Thomas Niedermayer. To be added to the list is Say Nothing. These films chart the significant impact conflict has on societies and families.

Such context might have helped in a debate on the merits of the violence and how we deal with ‘legacy’ in a caring way that aids reconciliation, as far as that is possible. The conference could have reflected that we were fortunate to avoid an all-out civil war. The late senator, Maurice Hayes, put it perfectly, when I asked him whether the republican movement’s campaign of violence was justified, “There was nothing achieved through violence that could not otherwise have been achieved by peaceful means.”

In addressing the concerns of all victims, our future should be defined by those who appreciate the impact our unnecessary conflict had on all of us across society. A small sub-section of individual tragedies does not deserve our sole focus.

Lawyers could have reflected on the fact that when the conflict came to an end, it was decided that we would not hold our own version of the Nuremberg Trials. Indeed, the Irish government stopped all investigations in 1998. This approach allowed peace-takers to become celebrated as peacemakers, without any apology or acknowledgment of their wrongdoing.

The legal profession could ask itself whether it acquiesces in the promotion of a false narrative.

I’ve listened to paramilitaries from all sides tell the young that “they only have what they have today because of their sacrifices”, trying to create the belief that our society is indebted to them for their violence. Really! 2,148 murders (58.6%) by republicans, 1,071 murders (29.2%) by loyalists in response and 365 killed (10%) by the security forces. Thousands injured, billions of pounds of damage, a balkanised society and over 20,000 people (12,000 republicans and 8,000 loyalists) convicted of crimes due to the deeply flawed politics that inspired them.

Our profession could debate dealing with ‘legacy’ in a way that does not avoid the truth, educating young people about the futility of violence.

We could have explained how our democracy struggled to protect people through our justice system from the terrorism that blighted society, even though the identities of those perpetrating the violence were known. Knowing who was responsible is not evidence sufficient to imprison, but could more have been done? Even the ‘supergrass trials’ of the 1980s were rejected as unacceptable to our democracy.

The conference could have examined how we avoided the civil war sought after by the republican movement and examined if that movement is using legacy to continue old battles and maintain divisions. What are the risks of our profession being used to further conflict rather than reconciliation?

The testimonies at the Omagh Bomb Inquiry remind us that so many in the profession listened to heartbreaking stories as they dealt with the trauma to their clients that flowed from terrorism.

We could have remembered with respect those who worked in the law, whether as judges, prosecution or defence lawyers, police and prison officers who continued to work through our democracy’s legal system, despite considerable personal risk from republican terrorists, some paying the ultimate price.

There are over 1,400 outstanding murders (and so inquests) to be resolved with over 700 relating to the murders of members of the security forces. How do we deal with those in a balanced way? In my opinion the Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is a reasonable attempt and deserves to be given the chance to prove itself. It should be noted that only 30% of republican murders were solved while 50% of loyalist murders resulted in successful prosecutions.

In our democracy the role of lawyers is vital to ensure adherence to a rule of law, protecting the freedoms we value and enjoy. A democracy will always struggle for balance in the context of the conflict we endured, but if there is further compensation, over and above the criminal injury claims paid out years ago, now being paid by the state to victims of the Troubles or their families then surely all the innocent victims should be able to access it.

As to the immunity from prosecution, while still distasteful, it might be more morally and legally acceptable if those seeking immunity had to make full and unconditional apologies, accept their crimes were wrong and perhaps accept a conviction, though with any sentence suspended. I would have been interested in the views of those attending the conference on that and what the legal structure to enable it might look like.

The ability to name those responsible for Troubles crimes raises legal issues that can be addressed and so an informed debate could have helped to ensure that can be done.

A conference involving all our members on legacy could have been a really constructive contribution on the issues. Such a pity that opportunity for open debate was missed.

Trevor Ringland, solicitor