Prosecutions, Imprisonment and the Stormont House Agreement: A Critical Analysis of Proposals on Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland

Abstract

Stormont House Agreement (2014) Paragraph 21. 'As part of the transition to long-term peace and stability the participants agree that an approach to dealing with the past is necessary which respects the following principles: promoting reconciliation; upholding the rule of law; acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors; facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery; is human rights compliant; and is balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.' 6 NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY As ever in the Northern Ireland context, disputes on terminology can arise. Our focus herein is on providing accessible legal and policy analysis, using clear and unambiguous terms to help readers make up their own mind on these complex and sensitive matters. The conflict, sometimes referred to as the Troubles, refers to actions concerning the constitutional status of Northern Ireland by republican paramilitaries, loyalist paramilitaries, the security forces (in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) and others from 1966 onwards.

Closing the ranks: Bondedness, sense of self and moral injury during legacy case prosecutions

“…It also exposes, too, the growing disillusionment with and growing detachment from the UK Government that military veterans feel in the aftermath of a counter-insurgency campaign that the state is too politically embarrassed to confront (Brewer and Herron, 2021: 124). This sense of external threat has galvanised the veteran bonded group where a deep sense of anger has mobilised it against the ‘reclassification’ of the past Even if it is legally and empirically erroneous (Bryson, 2021) and discounts the genuine and legitimate demands for truth and justice from the victims of state violence (Lundy and Rolston, 2016; Rolston, 2010), the ‘witch hunt’ narrative that reduces the ‘reclassification’ of the past to a crass ‘rewriting’ of history by ‘terrorists’ has gained remarkable traction among the closely bonded, insular veteran constituency (McEvoy, 2020). Turning to ‘intimates’ within the bonded group for support, aggrieved veterans have publicly confronted the UK government en masse demanding an end to a ‘witch hunt’ seemingly designed to appease the ‘terrorists’ under the GFA (NIVM n.d.b).…”

“…Against this backdrop, British Army veterans have framed the prosecution of a small number of veterans as a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ against those previously cleared of wrongdoing. Their ‘witch hunt’ claim, however, fails to stand up to empirical statistical scrutiny and, just like Bradley's comments, overlooks well documented flaws in many of the original investigations (Bryson, 2021; McEvoy, 2020, 2022; McGovern, 2019). Nevertheless, within the veteran constituency ‘reclassifying’ the past has become synonymous with the post-Good Friday Agreement (GFA) scapegoating of veterans, leading them to close ranks (Brewer and Herron, 2019: 56) and take to the streets in protest at legacy investigations.…”

“…They were people acting under orders and under instruction and fulfilling their duty in a dignified and appropriate way’ ( BBC, 2019a). Bradley's comments wilfully overlook shortcomings in how state violence was legally regulated and investigated at the time (Bryson, 2021; Lundy and Rolston, 2016; McEvoy, 2020), yet in reducing the discussion to a macabre and simplistic numbers game they typify the UK Government narrative that the ‘dealing with the past’ process has been hijacked by human rights groups, activist lawyers and former ‘terrorists’ intent on ‘rewriting the past’ (Hearty, 2020).…”

“…While there has been an emerging body of criminological (Hearty, 2020; McGovern, 2019), legal (Bryson, 2021; Mallinder, 2020; Mallory et al, 2020; McEvoy, 2020), and political (Chung, 2021) scholarship on veteran prosecutions in NI, sociological examination has been surprisingly absent despite the clear relevance of several strands of sociology. Situating itself within a broader sociological terrain that includes military sociology, the sociology of emotions, and social movement studies, this article seeks to encourage sociological exploration of the internal mobilisation of ‘intimates’ (Jasper and Poulsen, 1995) within the veteran constituency (i.e., veterans and/or their families) against NI legacy case prosecutions.…”

When ideal victims don’t make ideal offenders: The (re)framing of legacy case prosecutions against elderly perpetrators of state violence

“…The lack of an overarching process to address past violence has allowed fundamental disagreement over how to define it to bleed into discussions around the concomitant issues of post-conflict truth and justice. Amidst a self-interested reluctance by the UK Government to face up to its role in the conflict, this disagreement has unhelpfully reduced the discussion around truth and justice to a politically toxic debate on whether or not former military personnel should now face criminal prosecution (Bryson et al, 2021; Mallinder, 2020; McEvoy et al, 2020).…”