29 March 2001 Edition
Scots Guards judicial review
The family of Belfast teenager Peter McBride return to the High Court in Belfast this Thursday, 29 March, to hear a second judicial review into the British Army's decision to allow the two Scots Guards convicted of his murder to remain in the British army. The hearing will last two days.
The Army Board announced its decision in November 2000, citing among other reasons the soldier's ages, the tense security situation at the time and the amount of training the soldiers had been given. These reasons were cited as the `exceptional circumstances' which allowed them to remain in the army despite being convicted of murder in a court of law. Speaking on behalf of the McBride family, Paul O'Connor of the Pat Finucane Centre said: ``These excuses are strikingly similar to the `error of judgement' already cited by the Army Board and rejected by Justice Kerr in September 1999, because it contradicted the judgement of the court that convicted the two in 1995.'' In documents submitted to the Army Board the legal representatives of the Guardsmen sought to argue that they were not guilty of murder.
In a sworn affidavit, the then Commanding Officer, Lt Col Tim Spicer, speculates that Peter Mc Bride may have been leading the guardsmen into a trap and was preparing to throw a coffee jar bomb over his shoulder at a range of over 70 metres when shot. Spicer's affidavit is deeply insulting to the McBride family. In light of this and other arguments submitted to the Board on behalf of the Guardsmen, it beggars belief that Board members could come to the conclusion that Mark Wright and James Fisher had learnt a ``bitter and lasting lesson''.
November's Army Board decision was condemned unanimously by the Dáil, and the question has been raised in Westminster as well as in the European Parliament. The Independent Assessor on Military Complaints has also condemned the decision.
The question facing Justice Kerr is fundamental: Is the British Army above the law?
The Army Board announced its decision in November 2000, citing among other reasons the soldier's ages, the tense security situation at the time and the amount of training the soldiers had been given. These reasons were cited as the `exceptional circumstances' which allowed them to remain in the army despite being convicted of murder in a court of law. Speaking on behalf of the McBride family, Paul O'Connor of the Pat Finucane Centre said: ``These excuses are strikingly similar to the `error of judgement' already cited by the Army Board and rejected by Justice Kerr in September 1999, because it contradicted the judgement of the court that convicted the two in 1995.'' In documents submitted to the Army Board the legal representatives of the Guardsmen sought to argue that they were not guilty of murder.
In a sworn affidavit, the then Commanding Officer, Lt Col Tim Spicer, speculates that Peter Mc Bride may have been leading the guardsmen into a trap and was preparing to throw a coffee jar bomb over his shoulder at a range of over 70 metres when shot. Spicer's affidavit is deeply insulting to the McBride family. In light of this and other arguments submitted to the Board on behalf of the Guardsmen, it beggars belief that Board members could come to the conclusion that Mark Wright and James Fisher had learnt a ``bitter and lasting lesson''.
November's Army Board decision was condemned unanimously by the Dáil, and the question has been raised in Westminster as well as in the European Parliament. The Independent Assessor on Military Complaints has also condemned the decision.
The question facing Justice Kerr is fundamental: Is the British Army above the law?