By delving back into an atrocity, we seek to shed some light on this dark chapter
THE murder of Earl Mountbatten and three of his fishing party, when a bomb exploded on his boat off the coast of Mullaghmore in Co. Sligo in 1979, was one of the most high-profile atrocities of the Troubles.
Today, we print previously unclaimed responsibility for the planning of the attack by well-known IRA man Michael Hayes, who has also been linked to the Birmingham, Harrods and Brighton bombings, the latter of which almost killed the UK’s then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
He has spoken out and taken collective responsibility for the actions of the IRA on a number of occasions in recent years, but at no stage has he ever mentioned that he had any involvement in the Mullaghmore atrocity.
In fact, another man was convicted of the murders and as such was, in the public mind, the main culprit, but Michael Hayes today tells the Irish Mail on Sunday that he was the chief architect of the plot, and that Thomas McMahon’s role was largely limited to physically planting Mr Hayes’s bomb on the boat.
We don’t delve into this tragedy to open up old divisions. We are publishing what Mr Hayes has told us on the basis that we believe the darkest moments of this island’s past deserve light shed upon them.
It is only by truly understanding the conflicts that many of us have lived through that we can be confident the next generation will glean the appropriate insight, and have the best understanding of, these difficult questions.
The issue of prosecutions for historical crimes is a live one, with the Belfast High Court only recently ruling that Westminster’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which would bring an end to charges against former security forces and paramilitary personnel for their past crimes, is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of the Windsor Framework.
LAST month, we celebrated the 26th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
That concord put no bar on prosecutions for such crimes, but did give immunity to people who had already been convicted of activities during the armed conflict on these islands.
As such, to hear direct testimony from Mr Hayes we believe is vital. We have taken our time to try to properly assess and contextualise his claims. We have contacted our own sources and have spoken with Mr Hayes on more than one occasion to attempt to get as close to the truth of the matter as we can.
But, ultimately, what we are left with is a bizarre confession from a man who has obviously been through a lot in his life.
We do not publish this story lightly. We have endeavoured to uphold our responsibility to the truth and to the victims of the conflict in the North, many of whom do not currently have the closure potentially offered by Mr Hayes’s words.
If our history is not to define our future, this newspaper believes we should grasp the thorny taboos, lest they continue to blight our hugely important – often critically so – diplomatic relationship with our nearest neighbour.