New legacy body offers ‘amnesty in all but name’, MPs told

Proposed new legacy mechanisms for Northern Ireland offer an “amnesty in all but name”, Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner has warned.

David Johnstone criticised the plan to allow people responsible for Troubles crimes to make “protected disclosures” to a new information recovery body, claiming the measure “fails the morality test of basic justice”.

Mr Johnstone was giving evidence to members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster as part of their examination of the Government’s draft Bill to reform legacy structures in Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seeks to replace the last Conservative government’s contentious Legacy Act, which offered conditional immunity from prosecution to perpetrators in exchange for their co-operation with truth recovery mechanisms.

The new proposed legislation ditched that controversial immunity provision.

It proposes a new-look Legacy Commission that will take on criminal investigations into Troubles deaths and a separate Independent Commission for Information Retrieval (ICIR), which will seek to provide answers to victims’ families in cases where criminal prosecutions are not considered realistic.

Individuals passing information to the truth recovery body will be able to do so with an undertaking that the account they provide cannot be used in criminal proceedings against them.

That is the same arrangement that is in place in the commission set up by the UK and Irish governments in 1999 to locate the remains of Disappeared victims of the Troubles.

Mr Johnstone said the veterans’ community in Northern Ireland had concerns about the protected disclosure mechanism.

“The Labour government have made such a big play around the morality of supposed immunity and have that as the motivation for changing the Legacy Act,” he said.

“That’s a different conversation – the right and wrongs of the immunity clause within the (Legacy) Act.

“However, in reality, what’s on offer now is amnesty in all but name, where someone can come forward, can disclose information, and they will not be prosecuted.

“And from veterans’ point of view, again, when you go back to royal pardons for terrorists, whatever the comfort letters are or aren’t, you know, prisoners let out (measures offered at different stages of the peace process), it’s like the morality side of this – this fails the morality test of basic justice.”

He added: “Clearly there is a mechanism that a terrorist, or indeed a soldier in the armed forces, can bring forward information about a crime, and the information that they provide cannot be used against them for prosecution.

“That is exactly what is laid out in the ICIR. And I’m just pointing (out) the morality of that is difficult for veterans to take. And I’m just making that point. But I think it’s clear there is a de facto amnesty built into this.”

The chief commissioner for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Alyson Kilpatrick, who also gave evidence to the committee, insisted the Bill did not offer immunity from prosecution.

“Where there is potential or there are lines of evidence that can be pursued in relation to criminal investigations that should take precedence and that should happen first,” she said.

“The ICIR will be receiving evidence where there is no prospect of prosecution, and that’s where they’re going to have to work out the differences.”

Ms Kilpatrick said there was a need for clarity.

“One of the issues we have with this Bill is that it’s not clear enough. Those things have to be cleared up. But it is clear this Bill is not intended to create immunity from prosecution.”

Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner Joe McVey said it was “disappointing” that the Bill did not offer more detail on the issue.

“There is a lot more detail needed before I think anybody here or around that side of the table (in committee room) could say we’re 100% happy,” he said.

DUP leader Gavin Robinson raised the prospect of the Legacy Commission determining that there was no evidential leads in a case, only for an individual to then bring information to the separate ICIR that, if it was not protected, would provide the basis for prosecution.

He expressed frustration around the lack of clarity on how such a situation would be handled.

“Why are we in the space of having to speculate when the details should be there?” he said.

“We shouldn’t have to guess what the process is.”