28 January 1999 Edition
MoD deny responsibility in shooting
The MoD has refused to accept liability for a British soldier who, while on duty in 1993, opened fire on mourners outside the home of dead IRA Volunteer Thomas Begley. Ardoyne Republican Eddie Copeland was shot in the stomach as British soldier Andrew Clarke fired up to 20 shots at mourners.
Copeland is suing the MOD. In an unprecedented move in court on Monday 18 January the MoD said it did not accept responsibility for the actions of Trooper Clarke, who was sentenced to 10 years for the attack but has since been released.
It is believed that this is the first time that the MoD has refused to accept liability for the actions of a soldier serving in the Six Counties who committed an offence while on duty.
Speaking about the decision, Copeland said that he has learned not to take anything for granted but he ``had assumed that after Clarke's conviction and the fact that he was on duty at the time of the shooting it was an open and shut case''.
``I thought that there was no way they could distance themselves from the actions of a soldier they had armed, trained and sent out on patrol into Ardoyne that day,'' he said.
Gerry Hyland of Madden and Finucane, who are representing Copeland, believes this latest twist is bizarre. ``The MoD paid out compensation in incidents such as the Clegg case where they wounded Markiewicz Gorman, and killed Karen Reilly and Martin Peake,'' he said.
``They give young men guns, train them in the use of these weapons and warn them about people they consider to be terrorist suspects but baulk at responsibility when the young man in question actually pulls the trigger.''
The prosecution, he said, are trying to draw a fine line on liability. He pointed out that the MoD, during the case, ``admitted that if Clarke had walked up to Mr Copeland and smashed him in the face with a rifle butt they would have been liable to damages, as this action would have been directly connected to his job''.
Mr Hyland has stated that he believes this case will have major implications for the legal system with the possibility of it going all the way to the European courts.
Speaking of the implications he said that, ``any decision to allow the MoD to wash its hands of its troops would be tantamount to a license for outrageous behaviour''.
Copeland is suing the MOD. In an unprecedented move in court on Monday 18 January the MoD said it did not accept responsibility for the actions of Trooper Clarke, who was sentenced to 10 years for the attack but has since been released.
It is believed that this is the first time that the MoD has refused to accept liability for the actions of a soldier serving in the Six Counties who committed an offence while on duty.
Speaking about the decision, Copeland said that he has learned not to take anything for granted but he ``had assumed that after Clarke's conviction and the fact that he was on duty at the time of the shooting it was an open and shut case''.
``I thought that there was no way they could distance themselves from the actions of a soldier they had armed, trained and sent out on patrol into Ardoyne that day,'' he said.
Gerry Hyland of Madden and Finucane, who are representing Copeland, believes this latest twist is bizarre. ``The MoD paid out compensation in incidents such as the Clegg case where they wounded Markiewicz Gorman, and killed Karen Reilly and Martin Peake,'' he said.
``They give young men guns, train them in the use of these weapons and warn them about people they consider to be terrorist suspects but baulk at responsibility when the young man in question actually pulls the trigger.''
The prosecution, he said, are trying to draw a fine line on liability. He pointed out that the MoD, during the case, ``admitted that if Clarke had walked up to Mr Copeland and smashed him in the face with a rifle butt they would have been liable to damages, as this action would have been directly connected to his job''.
Mr Hyland has stated that he believes this case will have major implications for the legal system with the possibility of it going all the way to the European courts.
Speaking of the implications he said that, ``any decision to allow the MoD to wash its hands of its troops would be tantamount to a license for outrageous behaviour''.