Let inquest jury address question of pub bombers
A litigation consultant at KRW Law, which represents ten families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombs, asks why the perpetrators will not be considered
THE coroner to the Birmingham pub bombings 1974 inquest will this Thursday preside over a further preliminary hearing as he sticks to his timetable to start substantive hearings in the autumn.
We are now all aware of his decision on the scope of the inquests. He will sit with a jury.
They will consider the issue of prior knowledge and forewarning – was there information available to the police that was not acted upon or withheld?
They may consider the issue of whether an agent or informant was in an IRA cell and was being protected – that issue is still under investigation.
They will consider any failure of the emergency services on case by case basis and not whether there was an overall failure in response to the bombings – why were there so few ambulances available that fateful night?
They will not consider the issue of perpetrators and their associates or their relation, if any, to the Birmingham Six and that miscarriage of justice.
The relatives of the victims represented by KRW Law consider it is necessary for the inquest to have within its scope the perpetrator issue.
There were approximately 45-50 attacks by the IRA up until the Birmingham pub bombings on different types of premises and targets – after the bombings, the attacks ceased. Were these attacks carried out by the same personnel and are they linked?
Recently, attired in his paramilitary fatigues, and from the sanctuary of Dublin, Michael Hayes was inter- viewed by BBC Northern Ireland, making remarks which only served to fuel the ire of the families of the victims.
It was with a degree of serendipity that Hayes (whose name cannot be mentioned in the inquest) made his admissions within a week of the issue of perpetrators being ruled out of the scope of the inquests.
Former IRA man turned lawyer Kieran Conway, also from the sanctuary of Dublin, praised the “courage” of Hayes.
The reasoning of the coroner on ruling out the issue of perpetrators was based on his interpretation of the law, what an inquest is for, and highlight to the families in open court those who may have been suspected to have been involved. The coroner in the that inquest has the benefit of intelligence documents with a grade allocated to them and can be viewed against any correlating evidence. An intelligence expert also viewed the documents and commented on their provenance. This process will facilitate the weight the coroner may place on such a document as to a person’s suspected involvement in the planning, participation or directing of the murders. With the proper direction by the coroner, a jury in the Birmingham pub bombing inquest could carry out a similar process. How do we account for such differences in approach and why? What will Sir Peter Thornton make of the admissions of Hayes? Who will investigate the admissions of Hayes (and Mr Conway), the West Midlands Police? How does the admission of Hayes fit with the account provided to Sir Peter by retired police officer Eric Francis regarding the Hagley Road bomb and should Hayes by extradited? If there is a criminal investigation into Hayes should the inquest be suspended pending its outcome? Is Hayes subject to the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement 1998? Rather than answering questions, questions are piling up.
There were 45-50 attacks by the IRA up until the Birmingham pub bombings – were these attacks carried out by the same personnel and are they linked?