U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–985PDF 2010

CONCERNS REGARDING POSSIBLE COLLUSION IN

NORTHERN IRELAND: POLICE AND

PARAMILITARY GROUPS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 22, 2009

Serial No. 111–65

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

CLIFF STAMMERMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Republican Professional Staff Member 

BRIAN FORNI, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Raymond McCord, Sr., Belfast, Northern Ireland ......................................... 7

Mr. John Finucane, Belfast, Northern Ireland ..................................................... 25

Ms. Jane Winter, Director, British Irish Rights Watch ....................................... 39

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Raymond McCord, Sr.: Prepared statement ................................................... 10

Mr. John Finucane: Prepared statement ............................................................... 31

Ms. Jane Winter: Prepared statement ................................................................... 41

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................... 62

(1)

CONCERNS REGARDING POSSIBLE COLLUSION IN NORTHERN IRELAND: POLICE AND 

PARAMILITARY GROUPS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Delahunt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me begin, and I want to welcome my friend 

and colleague from New Jersey who has been very active in these 

issues during the course of his public life, Chris Smith, who will 

serve as the ranking member since the official ranking member, 

Mr. Rohrabacher, is unable to attend today. 

Well, the Troubles in Northern Ireland refer to a period of over 

three decades of violence between the Nationalist community, 

mainly Catholic, and Unionist community, mainly Protestant. 

Paramilitary groups for both sides were used to intimidate segments of the population through violence and fear. Many innocent 

civilians were caught in the cross-fire. Since 1969, over 3,200 people have died as a result of this political violence. After years of 

fighting and many rounds of intense political debate, the Good Friday Agreement was signed in April 1998. 

This agreement called for a restoration of devolved government, 

including provisions on disarmament, policing, human rights, security normalization, status of prisoners, and that a change in Northern Ireland’s status could only come at the consent of a majority 

of its people voting in a referendum. As we all know, however, decades of animosity and violence are sometimes difficult to overcome. 

Peace has not come easily for the people of Northern Ireland. 

Full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has at times 

been problematic and difficult, with the newly created devolved 

government being suspended on four different occasions, most recently in October 2002, before finally being restored to its current 

state in May 2007 by the St. Andrews Agreement. The United 

States shares a common interest with the events taking place in 

Northern Ireland. According to the U.S. Census, there are currently an estimated 34.5 million Americans that can trace their ancestry back to Ireland. I happen to be one of them. 

2

The Secretary of State visited Northern Ireland’s Stormont Assembly recently, drawing international attention to the standoff between Catholic and Protestant leaders over the transfer of police 

and court authority from London to Belfast, and I want to note and 

applaud these discussions currently underway and hope that a conclusion is reached in a way that satisfies both sides, and most importantly, does justice. With the peace process moving forward, I 

have been asked, why hold a hearing on events that took place in 

the past? 

Well, my answer is simple. I believe that a key factor in this 

peace process actually lies with the unsolved murders that occurred 

during the Troubles. Bringing them to the attention of the American people once more and seeking a public investigation will surely stir old emotions, but I believe it will go far in creating a lasting 

peace and genuine reconciliation. So that is why we are here today. 

I want to focus specifically on the misuse of informants and whether the steps that have been taken by authorities in recent years 

will help restore the trust and confidence to a group of people that 

have had to endure far too many years of heartache and loss. 

Old wounds can be difficult to heal, and they often highlight the 

failings of government or law enforcement authorities. The greatest 

tragedy is the one that can be prevented. Here in the United 

States, there has been considerable controversy focused on the Boston office of the FBI and its relationship and supervision of informants. I know that story well, having been the district attorney or 

the state’s attorney in the metropolitan Boston area for some 22 

years. 

Verdicts in the tens of millions of dollars have been awarded 

against the government because of murders by informants that 

could have been avoided. Today we highlight two specific cases. On 

February 12, 1989, Patrick Finucane was shot multiple times in his 

kitchen in front of his wife and children, and on November 9, 1997, 

Raymond McCord, Jr., was kicked and beaten to death with a cinder block. We are indeed fortunate to have their family members 

here today with us to testify regarding the circumstances surrounding their deaths. And let me offer my condolences and that 

of the United States Congress to both families for your losses. 

A number of reports have examined the issue of state collusion 

in criminal activities in Northern Ireland, such as the retired 

judge, Canadian Judge Cory report and the Lord Stevens inquiries. 

In a moment we will hear from the former Police Ombudsman for 

Northern Ireland, Ms. O’Loan, whose report, Operation Ballast, exposed the crimes of an informant for the RUC, the Royal Ulster 

Constabulary, which included ten murders, ten attempted murders, 

and numerous assaults and weapons charges, all while being a 

paid informant collecting over 80,000 British pounds, or $120,000 

American, over the course of more than a decade. 

Furthermore, it was particularly distressing that the Police Ombudsman faced countless obstacles while carrying out her investigation, including missing and destroyed homicide files and decision logs, as well as resistance to her interview requests. Retired 

Judge Cory said in his report, and I am quoting Judge Cory:

3

‘‘Without public scrutiny, doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland community.’’

Without allowing the people of Northern Ireland to fully understand and come to terms with the past, how can the government 

expect them to move forward? To address these concerns, the Government of the United Kingdom passed the Inquiries Act of 2005. 

This was designed to provide a framework under which future inquiries set up by ministers into events that have caused or have 

potential to cause public concern can operate effectively to deliver 

valuable and practicable recommendations in reasonable time and 

at a reasonable cost. 

Yet, respected voices expressed concern almost immediately. Amnesty International asked members of the British judiciary not to 

serve on any inquiry held under the Act, and Judge Cory—again, 

I am quoting Judge Cory—had this to say:

‘‘It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a 

meaningful inquiry impossible. The commissions would be 

working in an impossible situation. For example, the minister, 

the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public 

inquiry, would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the 

inquiry at every step. 

‘‘It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act 

were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they 

would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry 

constituted under the proposed Act.’’

Certainly not a ringing endorsement, and I know both the 

Finucane and McCord families have their concerns with this Act. 

In a democratic society, only a full and transparent investigation 

of unsolved murders and inquiries into police collusion should take 

place, or the authorities risk losing the trust and confidence of the 

people. In a healthy democracy, the integrity of the justice system 

is absolutely essential, or democracy itself is at risk. 

Today we look forward to the testimony that will be given to this 

subcommittee as we weigh what, if any, actions Congress should 

take. And now, let me turn to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank my good friend and colleague Chairman Delahunt, first of all, for convening this important and timely 

hearing and briefing on what remains unfinished and unresolved. 

There is no statute of limitations on murder, and I appreciate the 

chairman for convening this hearing and bringing this committee 

together to focus on these unresolved cases that absolutely must be 

resolved. I also want to welcome, a special welcome to our witnesses, or rather, welcome back, to Baroness O’Loan, Jane Winter, 

and welcome to John Finucane and Raymond McCord, and to everyone joining us this morning, including some of the real longtime advocates for peace, justice and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, including Jim McFarland, Michael Glass, Sean Pender, 

4

Malachy McAllister, and Father Sean McManus, among others who 

are here today and who have been steadfast in promoting justice 

and peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. 

Since April 1998, Mr. Chairman, much progress has been made 

toward full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and the 

policing reforms promoted by the Agreement have made an enormous impact in advancing peace and justice in the North of Ireland. Mr. Chairman, as you know, between 1997 and 2006, I 

chaired the first ever and a total of 11 hearings on human rights 

and the peace process in Northern Ireland. Each of those hearings 

focused in whole or in part on what we consider to be the lynchpin 

of a lasting peace in the North: Real and sustainable police reform. 

One of the messages we heard most consistently at those hearings was that, in order to endure, the peace process required a police force that both sides could have confidence in, and this would 

require accountability for past crimes as well as for the security 

forces’ collusion with paramilitary groups. We heard this message 

from human rights organizations across the board, including Jane 

Winter of British Irish Rights Watch, but also from Baroness 

O’Loan and from John Finucane’s courageous and gracious mother, 

Geraldine Finucane, from his brother, Michael Finucane, who is 

also here today, and from Param Cumaraswamy, the U.N. Special 

Rapporteur, from retired Canadian Supreme Court Justice Peter 

Cory, who investigated the possibility of collusion at the request of 

the Irish and the British Governments, and we heard the message 

most tragically and poignantly from Rosemary Nelson, human 

rights attorney who testified here in this very room about death 

threats she had received from RUC officers. She did that just 6 

months before she was assassinated. 

All expressed that to move forward with confidence and in peace, 

there was a need to hold to account human rights abusers in the 

security forces. The wisdom of this message has been proven by 

events since 1998. The reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary 

into the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with new badges and 

uniforms and a culture more hospitable to Catholic officers, has 

been a success, yet there are many, especially in the British Government, who think reform can stop there, that it doesn’t require 

full honesty about and accountability for security services’ collusion 

with paramilitary killers. 

I disagree. In fact, it was in this room 10 years ago that I and 

other members implored the Right Honorable Christopher Patten, 

Chairman of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern 

Ireland, to work to ensure that his groundbreaking report, entitled 

‘‘A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland,’’ be just that, a 

beginning. The report mandated by the Good Friday Agreement 

needed to be a floor, not a ceiling, for systemic reform in law enforcement systems in Northern Ireland. 

I expressed disappointment at the time that the police reforms 

did not include a ‘‘vetting process’’ for the so-called bad apples, as 

he called them, because I believe, as so many human rights activists do, that if people who have committed egregious abuse in the 

past are in the same jobs or work up in the chain of command and 

are never held to account, then your reform is only as good as your 

5

weakest link. My opinion about the vetting process and holding 

people to account is no different today. 

Thus, I remain extremely disappointed that our friends in the 

British Government refuse to see the benefit of getting to the truth 

about serious allegations of collusion. We see this refusal, this 

blind spot, if you will, and the shocking refusal to live up to the 

Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent Weston Park Agreement, which requires a public judicial inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane. We also see it in their refusal to make public previous government reports about Pat Finucane’s murder and in the 

2005 passage of the Inquiries Act, designed to restrict real, public 

and transparent investigation into the widespread allegations of 

collusion. 

It has taken enormous courage by a dedicated few to consistently 

follow the trail of collusion and fight for human rights of the victims and their surviving family members. For 9 years, the fiercely 

independent Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Baroness 

Nuala O’Loan, worked at great risk to her own security and that 

of her family. She always showed the utmost integrity and gave 

people on both sides of the divide the confidence to move forward 

with the policing aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. 

Likewise, Jane Winter, the heroic British director of British Irish 

Rights Watch, has taken great risks to offer her services to anyone 

of either community whose rights have been violated. The Finucane 

and the McCord families have already been devastated by killers 

enabled by colluding officials, and they bear risks in taking up the 

defense of human rights. So Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by 

applauding our witnesses’ contribution to police reform, as it is at 

the heart of sustained police and peace in Northern Ireland. 

They have provided guidance and insight to our Government and 

to this Congress, including to my bill and subsequent laws that 

suspended U.S. exchanges with the RUC until standards were set 

to vet out officers engaged in human rights abuses. Our witnesses 

have also provided great insights to officials in Northern Ireland, 

as well as successive Irish and British Governments. Without their 

wisdom and courage, I doubt police reform would have succeeded 

as well as it has, and I am eager to hear what we can do next to 

keep the reform and the peace process moving. 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Chris, and I want to acknowledge, 

we have been joined by two colleagues, Mary Jo Kilroy from Ohio 

and Mike McMahon from New York, and it is my understanding 

that Congresswoman Kilroy would like to make a statement, so 

please proceed, and then we will introduce the Baroness and listen 

to her testimony during the course of the briefing. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I don’t ordinarily sit on this committee and will have to return to the committee that I do sit on because we will have votes in about 20 minutes, but I did want to thank you for your leadership in this issue 

and for holding this hearing. I want to thank all of the witnesses 

who have traveled here to present their testimony. I, as my colleagues have done, want to thank you and applaud you for your 

leadership and your advocacy. 

6

I also want to offer my condolences to the families who have lost 

their members through this kind of assassination and murder. I 

think it is critically important in order to achieve peace and justice 

and reconciliation that the truth of these killings be made public 

and that we get all of the facts out through independent and public 

judicial inquiries. I had the great pleasure of meeting Patrick 

Finucane on one of his tours in this country, and he was there to 

tell lawyers in the American legal system about what was going on 

in the legal system in the North of Ireland at that time, to bring 

out the importance of due process and openness in the court system. 

His assassination obviously was a huge blow to his family, but 

it was also a huge blow to the right to free speech. It was also a 

huge blow to the establishment of an independent judicial system 

and the right to counsel. It is very important that the facts of his 

assassination and that of Mr. McCord be made fully public, and I 

congratulate you for your work on doing that and thank again the 

chairman for his leadership, and I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I understand 

our friend and colleague from New York wishes to make a brief 

opening statement. Mike McMahon? 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will, to get the proceeding going, I will submit a lengthier statement for the record. 

I just want to commend you for holding this very important hearing, certainly for me as an Irish-American, but also for my district, 

where just this past weekend we hosted Foreign Minister Michael 

Martin and Ambassador Michael Collins as we dedicated bones of 

Irish immigrants from the 1850s that had been found in a mass 

grave in Staten Island. 

So the Irish experience, of course, is very important for me as it 

relates to this country, but also in Ireland as well. I had the privilege of being in Ireland in 2007 as part of a city delegation that 

met with Ian Paisley as he just was going to announce that he 

would move forward with the Good Friday Accords, and like many 

in this room, I am very concerned about the allegations of collusion 

and what it has meant to these two families, the loss of their loved 

ones, and so I join together with you, Mr. Chairman, committed to 

seeing that justice is provided in this case and that we get to a day 

where our hopes and aspirations for peace in Ireland are realized. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Congressman. 

[Briefing off the record.] 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Why don’t we call forward our panel, Ms. Winter, 

Mr. McCord, Mr. Finucane? And let me give a brief introduction of 

each of these witnesses, and before I forget, we are now convening 

a hearing. 

Raymond McCord, Sr., was born in Belfast. He is a Protestant 

from a strong Unionist family. He and his wife Vivienne had three 

sons, the late Raymond, Jr., plus Gareth and Glenn. When his son 

Raymond, Jr., was murdered in 1997, he embarked on a long quest 

for the truth, which led directly to the O’Loan Report, Operation 

Ballast 2007. He is a pipe fitter and a welder by trade and it has 

been my pleasure to have an opportunity to spend some time with 

Mr. McCord. Welcome. 

7

And Mr. Finucane. At 29 years old, John is the youngest son of 

Patrick Finucane, a human rights lawyer from Belfast who was 

murdered in 1989. He is a qualified solicitor practicing in Belfast 

and specializes in criminal defense work, having obtained a law degree in 2002 from Dundee Law School in Scotland. He is currently 

on the roll of solicitors in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. 

He has worked on a range of cases, mainly within criminal defense, 

but also coroner’s inquests and police ombudsman investigations. 

All have included contentious and high-profile work, including the 

ongoing shoot-to-kill inquests from the 1980s, and historical, politically sensitive actions against the police. 

Jane Winter has been monitoring and researching the human 

rights dimension of the conflict in Northern Ireland since 1990. 

Since 1995, she has been the director of British Irish Rights Watch, 

an independent human rights non-governmental organization 

whose services are available free of charge to anyone whose human 

rights have been violated because of the conflict, regardless of religious, political or community affiliations. She has received numerous awards and commands great respect within the United Kingdom and here in the United States. 

Welcome all, and let us begin with Mr. McCord. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RAYMOND MCCORD, SR., BELFAST, 

NORTHERN IRELAND 

Mr. MCCORD. Mr. Chairman and members, I am most grateful 

for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. I request 

my written statement be entered into the record. I see this hearing 

as a lifeline that has been thrown to me and my family. I cannot 

help but be struck by the difference between the way I have been 

treated by Members of Congress and the way Unionist Protestant 

politicians have treated me. In 2008, when there was a vote taken 

in the Northern Ireland Assembly on my son’s case, a majority of 

the Unionist politicians walked out. 

You can therefore see just what your support means to me. I look 

to the United States Congress as my last hope of getting justice for 

my son. He was brutally murdered in 1997 near Belfast. The killers belonged to a Protestant paramilitary group, the Ulster Volunteer Force. The man who gave the orders to kill my son is Mark 

Haddock. He was a long-time paid British Government agent, police informer and serial killer, as the Police Ombudsman’s report 

of 2007 established. 

For nearly 10 years, I have campaigned for justice for my son 

and for those years the British Government, my government, that 

is, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, my police, have 

blocked and stonewalled me. They have colluded and are still 

colluding with the killers of my son and many other victims. I really want to emphasize to the subcommittee that my son’s case is not 

about police corruption. It is about police and state collusion with 

murder. 

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 promised a new beginning 

to policing. My family and I have experienced no new beginning. 

We have only experienced cover-ups, lies and threats. Throughout 

the key period, the police were controlled by Ronnie Flanagan, the 

former head of the Special Branch and chief constable from 1996 

8

to 2002. However, I do recognize there are many fine individual 

cops in Northern Ireland who weren’t allowed to do their job. 

Sir Hugh Orde, who until very recently was chief constable, was 

seen as bringing a new attitude to policing, but even he retained 

Mark Haddock as a paid agent for 15 months after it was established that Haddock had been involved in many murders. Not long 

after Raymond’s murder, as I began campaigning for justice, the 

UVF on one night covered the walls on Protestant houses near my 

home with the following message: ‘‘Daddy Raymond, which son 

next, Gareth or Glenn? Your choice.’’

Hours earlier, they had smashed Raymond’s headstone with 

hammers, one of three such attacks. Even though the names of the 

perpetrators were given to the police, I was the one who was arrested and put in a police cell to shut me up. It was one of many 

times the police arrested me for no reason other than to try to silence me. The continuing campaign of intimidation and death 

threats against my family and me is not random. 

It is controlled and organized and the perpetrators are known because the police and British intelligence have totally penetrated the 

UVF. The Ombudsman’s report too has established this. In May 

2009, the Irish National Caucus sponsored my visit to Capitol Hill. 

While here, the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington arranged 

for me to visit the British Embassy to speak with Nic Hailey, the 

spokesman for justice and policing in Northern Ireland. 

Mr. Hailey never answered one question, never offered any explanation, and never uttered the slightest hope that I might get 

justice for my son. Why is there such a conspiracy of silence surrounding Raymond’s murder? My son was an innocent 22-year-old, 

a loving son and brother. He was not a threat to any person or 

state. Why has Mark Haddock had so much influence? How can he 

so shamefully blackmail the British Government and their security 

forces? 

What and who gives this murderer so much power? The answer 

is collusion. It effectively gives killers the power to control their 

government. Haddock’s first murder was in 1993, which he admitted to two RUC detectives a day after the murder, but instead of 

being arrested, he was given money to go on a foreign holiday and 

continued to work as an agent and killer for another 10 years or 

more. There are questions which are central to my son’s case, and 

which the British Embassy refused to answer. 

Why has no one been charged with Raymond’s murder? Why was 

Haddock allowed to kill for so long and get paid for it? Why no action against present or former RUC/PSNI officers who refused to 

be interviewed or to cooperate with the Ombudsman’s investigation? Why were police officers allowed to get away with admitting 

to coaching and babysitting suspects in sham interviews to ensure 

the suspects would not admit to murder? 

Police officers even got away with admitting they handed over a 

bomb to Haddock that was used in the Irish Republic. A democratic 

society requires that the police must not be above the law, rather, 

they must uphold it and be seen to do so, yet my son’s case clearly 

demonstrates that in Northern Ireland, some police officers and 

their agents can literally get away with murder. This is not only 

collusion, but also collusion sanctioned from the very top. 

9

It is not about the corruption of a few bad apples. What does it 

do to Northern Ireland’s society when the government pays serial 

killers? What does it do to the policing system when killers are 

given a wage increase of 60% after they commit their first murder? 

That is what happened with Mark Haddock when he murdered 

Sharon McKenna in 1993. This is the shocking collusion I have 

been battling against for 12 lonely years, but now it is my hope 

that with the help of the U.S. Congress, my son will at last be 

given justice and a great wrong will be righted. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, from the bottom of my 

heart. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCord follows:]

10


52985b-1.eps
11


52985b-2.eps
12


52985b-3.eps
13


52985b-4.eps
14


52985b-5.eps
15


52985b-6.eps
16


52985b-7.eps
17


52985b-8.eps
18


52985b-9.eps
19


52985b-10.eps
20


52985b-11.eps
21


52985b-12.eps
22


52985b-13.eps
23


52985b-14.eps
24


52985b-15.eps
25

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. McCord, for that very moving 

and poignant testimony. I think we all, those of us who are parents, can empathize with the pain and the desire for justice, not 

for revenge, but just for simple justice that you are seeking. 

Mr. Finucane? 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN FINUCANE, BELFAST, NORTHERN 

IRELAND 

Mr. FINUCANE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my 

fellow speakers, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Finucane. 

My father was Patrick Finucane, the Belfast solicitor murdered by 

lawless paramilitaries in 1989. My family and I have campaigned 

since his murder for a fully independent judicial public inquiry into 

the circumstances surrounding the killing. We have done so because of compelling evidence that my father’s murder was part of 

an approved British Government policy of widespread collusion between the state and Loyalist paramilitaries, which incorporated 

state complicity in all types of illegal activity, up to and including 

murder. 

The campaign my family and I have conducted for the establishment of a public judicial inquiry into my father’s murder has lasted 

for over 20 years. We have had only one objective from the outset, 

to discover and uncover the truth behind my father’s murder. On 

the very night my father was shot dead, the 12th of February, 

1989, my family knew the authorities were involved in some way, 

but we didn’t know the details. 

We did know that my father had been subjected to constant 

threats from police officers during his professional career, threats 

that were never made to his face but rather to his clients while 

they were interrogated in the absence of their lawyer. Derogatory 

comments quickly escalated into threats. Threats quickly escalated 

into death threats, all of which came from the police. Less than 3 

weeks before he was killed, a government minister, Douglas Hogg, 

MP, made a statement in the British Parliament that marked Pat 

and other solicitors for murder. 

He said, ‘‘I have to state that there are in Northern Ireland a 

number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of 

the IRA.’’ This comment was shocking and provocative at the time, 

but what was to prove even more sinister was its foundation. Hogg 

said at the time that he based his statement on ‘‘advice that he had 

received,’’ He did not reveal from whom, and it was later revealed, 

however, that he had been told this by police in a private briefing 

the year before. 

Over many years, my family and I persisted in seeking all of the 

facts surrounding my father’s murder. This followed much investigation, lobbying, speaking out at every opportunity, and no little 

personal risk. My mother was forced to move from her home for 

several months as a result of death threats from Loyalist 

paramilitaries. Others have been attacked just for being part of the 

Finucane family. Even so, we have persisted. 

After much delay, the British Government was eventually forced 

to announce in 2001 that a judge of international standing would 

review our case and recommend a public inquiry if evidence of collusion was found. This was included as part of a larger intergovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\102209\52985 HFA PsN: SHIRL
26

ernmental agreement made between Britain and Ireland as part of 

the peace negotiations. The judge appointed was Peter Cory, former 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. 

My family was not involved in the negotiations that led to the 

agreement. We did not feel that further examination was required 

to prove our case. We did not doubt the credibility or integrity of 

Judge Cory. We believed that this was simply a delaying tactic by 

the British Government. However, Judge Cory did ultimately conclude that evidence of collusion existed, and recommended a public 

inquiry in our case. 

In his final report, he said, ‘‘The documents and statements I 

have referred to in this review have a cumulative effect. Considered together, they clearly indicate to me that there is strong evidence that collusive acts were committed by the British Army, the 

RUC Special Branch and the Security Service. I am satisfied that 

there is a need for a public inquiry.’’ When his report was published, something that was delayed for some time by the British 

Government, Judge Cory stated that any appointed commission 

should have all powers normally associated with a commission of 

inquiry. 

The most important power is that a commission decides itself 

what matters should be considered and what should be made public. However, after the publication of the Cory Report, the British 

Government announced that a new law was required. The British 

Secretary of State at the time, Paul Murphy, said on September 23, 

2004:

‘‘The government has taken into account the exceptional concern about this case. Against that background, the government 

has concluded that steps should now be taken to enable the establishment of an inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane. 

‘‘In order that the inquiry can take place speedily and effectively and in a way that takes into account the public interest, 

including the requirements of national security, it will be necessary to hold the inquiry on the basis of new legislation, 

which will be introduced shortly.’’

And he later explained that this was necessary because ‘‘much of 

the material that would have to be examined in this inquiry is 

highly sensitive to national security issues. For example, many of 

the operational techniques that would be discussed in the inquiry 

would be used currently in the War Against Terror, for instance.’’ 

And these operational techniques that he referred to were analyzed 

further in a different investigation into my father’s murder. It was 

carried out by the former Commissioner for the London Metropolitan Police, Lord John Stevens, and the techniques in question were 

confirmed to be collusion. 

Lord Stevens summarized them in this way, and I again repeat 

what another witness, Nuala O’Loan, has already referred to:

‘‘My inquiries have highlighted collusion. The willful failure to 

keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of 

intelligence and evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder. These serious acts and omissions have 

meant that people have been killed or seriously injured.’’

27

This is not the only report written about the murder of my father. The case is being examined by dozens of organizations and individuals of international repute, and all have concluded that the 

evidence in the case demands an independent public inquiry. One 

series of reports was prepared by Human Rights First, formerly the 

Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and charts the progress of 

the case for an inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane over 

an entire decade from an international perspective. 

It is illustrative because it demonstrates the extent to which the 

case has grown in strength over the years, and highlights the determination of the British Government to suppress the truth. The 

original examination of the case by Human Rights First took place 

in 1992 with a delegation led by Dr. Michael Posner. Subsequent 

reports were published in 1995 and 2003, and with each new assessment, more information was uncovered and made public. 

The first report found ‘‘credible evidence that Finucane’s effective 

legal advocacy and politically sensitive cases resulted in his harassment and ultimately led to his killing. We also find credible evidence suggesting collusion between elements within the security 

forces and Loyalist paramilitaries and Finucane’s murder.’’ The report continued:

‘‘There is also evidence pointing to the involvement of the RUC 

in the form of knowing acquiescence or perhaps even instigation. Two independent sources told us that the RUC had a double agent in the Ulster Defense Association. According to these 

sources, the double agent informed the RUC that Finucane was 

a target, assuming they would prevent the murder from taking 

place.’’

The deputy chief constable of the RUC at the time, Michael 

McAtamney, wrote to the Lawyers Committee complaining about 

the contents of the report. In a letter dated the 25th of January, 

1993, he said:

‘‘The shortcomings of the report are such as to lead me to the 

conclusion that it does not merit detailed comment, and in its 

present form is not capable of being constructively amended. 

Among its many defects, there is a repetition of unsubstantiated allegations, as if these constituted evidence of security 

forces or official misconduct. One is left with the distinct impression of a mass of allegations resting on a limited, unrepresentative base of sources.’’

The Northern Ireland office gave a similar response. In particular, it rejected any allegation made about the possible involvement of the RUC:

‘‘We particularly believe that the report, especially in the section on Mr. Finucane’s murder, is unfair to the security forces, 

and especially the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Unsubstantiated 

allegations are no substitute for evidence, particularly in view 

of the very serious charges you lay at the RUC’s door.’’

This is, and was, typical of official reaction to the allegations 

being leveled at the police and the security forces. It is almost 

surreal to look back at these comments in light of what we know 

today, namely, that all of the allegations were true, but denied as 

28

false and malicious. Ten years after they released the first report, 

Human Rights First published an up-to-date document entitled 

‘‘Beyond Collusion,’’ a collection of information gathered by many 

people over the intervening years. 

The report is introduced with the following statement:

‘‘Over the last 10 years, the Lawyers Committee has conducted 

a series of missions to Northern Ireland to investigate reports 

of official collusion in the murder. The evidence that has 

emerged over this period extends far beyond isolated acts of 

collusion by individual members of the security forces, and implicates the very foundations of the British Government’s security policy in Northern Ireland. There are many allegations 

that units within both the British Army and the RUC were involved at an institutional level in the murder and subsequent 

cover-up.’’

Recent correspondence between the British Government’s Northern Ireland office and my family via our legal team underscores a 

continued policy of delay. I wish to place copies of this correspondence on the record of this hearing, and ask that they be read into 

the record. I believe they show a lack of any real commitment on 

the part of the British Government to fulfill its agreement to hold 

an inquiry. One excuse after another is presented. 

In a letter from February 2006, the British Secretary of State for 

Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, explained that we were wrong about 

the British Government’s intentions. He wrote to us saying, ‘‘It is 

simply not the case that the Inquiries Act is the British Government’s way of changing the rules for this inquiry. The Act was a 

general reform measure introduced following a 3-month consultation exercise in 2004 and a study carried out in 2002.’’

He went on to explain the necessity for restricting information 

was because, and I again quote from this letter, ‘‘the volume of sensitive material is far too great. It is likely that any inquiry into 

your husband’s death will want to examine all the potentially relevant information held within government and the law enforcement agencies, and all the evidence collected by the different investigations carried out so far.’’

In Autumn 2006, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State Peter 

Hain decided to cease work on preparations for the inquiry, and we 

were first told of this in a letter from the Northern Ireland office 

11⁄2 years after he had made his decision. He decided to stop work 

because, ‘‘in light of the Finucane family’s continuing opposition, it 

was no longer justifiable to continue to devote public money to 

preparations for an inquiry which the family would refuse to accept 

under the terms of the Inquiries Act.’’

Correspondence received during the intervening period made no 

mention of Mr. Hain’s decision. We have since been discussing with 

the British Government how and when they propose to complete 

preparations for the inquiry, and also how we will resolve the 

issues of transparency and independence. This has not been easy. 

The current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Shaun Woodward, has been reluctant to discuss ways of moving the situation 

forward or even meet with my family. 

29

In a letter to mother Geraldine shortly after he assumed his post 

in Northern Ireland, he dismissed the idea that a meeting to discuss the inquiry could be beneficial, and he wrote:

‘‘You met Peter Hain in February 2006, and he subsequently 

wrote to you responding in detail to the concerns you raised. 

I have considered carefully all the points previously made, and 

I share my predecessor’s view that an inquiry under the Inquiries Act would be independent. 

‘‘Against that background, it is not clear to me that a further 

meeting is likely to expose new points which have not been 

identified previously. If that assumption is mistaken, please let 

me know, and in those circumstances, I will ensure that we 

meet.’’

Mr. Woodward did not mention in his letter that in the meantime, 

no further work would be done on the inquiry. As I stated earlier, 

this was not revealed until April 2008. 

To date, the Secretary of State has not met with my family. It 

is only recently that they have conceded even a meeting between 

our respective legal advisors. The commitment to hold an inquiry 

has been postponed and delayed as much as possible using every 

possible excuse. The inquiry was even diverted into the work of the 

consultative group in the past, which was entirely unnecessary, 

since the group was tasked with searching for mechanisms to address the legacy of the conflict, and the mechanism for resolving 

our case has been decided already by the two governments. 

The inclusion of our case by the consultative group was not a development that my family welcomed, and we met with the group 

to express our concerns. It is disappointing that they did not respect our wishes in their final report, as we have no wish to become part of any overall truth commission forum. Perhaps most 

weighing of all is the suggestion by the British Government in 

their most recent correspondence that an inquiry should not now 

be held at all, in the public interest. 

They claim that the passage of time since the murder has rendered it of little relevance to the issues faced by Northern Ireland 

today. The fact that it is the government that has caused the lion’s 

share of delay appears to count for very little. Much of the delay 

was occasioned by the insistence of the British Government that a 

new law to control inquiries was required. They asserted that any 

inquiry would be capable of getting to the truth by using this new 

legislation, but it is an assertion that does not stand up to scrutiny. 

The Inquiries Act 2005 prevents any inquiry from acting independently. It forces the tribunal, no matter how independent——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Finucane? 

Mr. FINUCANE. Yes? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you suspend for a minute, because we are 

going to have a series of votes that will probably require about 40 

minutes, so I am going to ask Ms. Winter if you will all bear with 

us, but before we leave to vote, and again, my apologies, but this 

is what happens in this body, could you wrap up your testimony 

so that when we come back we can have Ms. Winter commence 

hers? 

30

Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to finish by 

reminding Mr. Chairman and everyone here today that these 

houses of Congress have also endorsed the prompt holding of a 

public inquiry in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement. This was contained in H.R. 740, passed by this House on the 

18th of May, 2006. An identical term was passed by the Senate on 

the 24th of May, 2006, and the thing that I want to know most of 

all is that I want to know the truth about my father’s murder. 

I want to know who was responsible. I want to know why no one 

warned him he was in danger, and I want to know why he wasn’t 

protected. I want to know who covered it up. My brother Michael, 

who is here with me today, wants the same thing, as does our 

mother Geraldine and our sister Catherine. All of my family and 

my friends and my father’s friends want this. If the British Government is serious about resolving the situation in Northern Ireland 

for good and building a lasting peace, then all we ask is this one 

simple thing. 

They cannot give me back my father, but the least they can do 

is tell me the truth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finucane follows:]

31


52985c-1.eps
32


52985c-2.eps
33


52985c-3.eps
34


52985c-4.eps
35


52985c-5.eps
36


52985c-6.eps
37


52985c-7.eps
38


52985c-8.eps
39

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Finucane, and before we recess, 

I want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Engel from New York, 

and I hope he can rejoin us when we return, although I know all 

members have a very frenetic schedule, so we shall come back and 

we will look forward to hearing from Ms. Winter. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that there are some time constraints, so Mr. Smith, if you would come up here. If Ms. Winter 

would come to the table, and if you could proceed, Ms. Winter, give 

us a brief synopsis of your testimony, I know that you have a, is 

it a 1:15 plane or a train, or. . .? 

Ms. WINTER. It is a 2 p.m. train. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. A 2-p.m. train. 

Ms. WINTER. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Give it to us in 3 or 4 minutes, and I understand 

Mr. Finucane also has that time frame, so we want to get you out. 

Ms. WINTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JANE WINTER, DIRECTOR, BRITISH IRISH 

RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. WINTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this 

honorable subcommittee for the opportunity to give evidence before 

you today. This is a summary of the longer written submission 

which I request be read into the record. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Ms. WINTER. We have been studying collusion in Northern Ireland ever since our inception in 1990, and the first case that we 

examined was that of Patrick Finucane, and of course we have also 

worked on Raymond McCord’s case since then, and many, many 

others. Indeed, until very recently, it was the NGOs who were systematically researching and exposing collusion in Northern Ireland. 

Collusion is a very difficult thing to measure because it is illegal 

and clandestine. 

No one knows its true extent, but all the work on collusion 

throws up patterns of behavior which suggest that it has become 

systemic. It is significant that the Consultative Group on the Past 

set up by the government to look at how Northern Ireland can deal 

with its very troubled legacy and move forward into a better future 

cited collusion as an issue that must be examined. At first, successive governments denied that collusion existed, but today it is 

widely accepted that it has taken place, partly thanks to the 

groundbreaking report issued by Baroness Nuala O’Loan following 

her investigation into the death of Raymond McCord, Jr., and to 

the work done by Lord Stevens in the Finucane case. 

There are currently three inquiries taking place in Northern Ireland into alleged collusion. These are the cases of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright, and I think that speaks for 

itself in terms of the fact that collusion is now recognized as a genuine problem. What concerns the BIRW is that, as Nuala O’Loan 

and Lord Stevens’ work has shown, these were not exceptional 

cases. They have simply become emblematic of collusion, which has 

permeated policing and in particular the intelligence services in 

Northern Ireland from the early 1970s to the present day. 

40

Collusion has become, if you like, mainstreamed. A key feature 

of collusion has been the suppression of reports into contentious 

deaths in Northern Ireland, most notably, the reports of the Stalker/Sampson inquiry and the three reports produced by Lord Stevens. The intelligence services in Northern Ireland have been heavily dependent upon recruiting informers amongst the paramilitary 

organizations, both Republican and Loyalist. 

Loyalists regarded themselves in many ways as being on the 

same side as the security forces, and many of them were prime intelligence sources for the security forces. In this sense, they were 

double agents. However, the duality of their role made them difficult to control from the point of view of the intelligence services, 

as we have heard in the case of Mark Haddock from Raymond 

McCord. Republicans have not seen themselves as being on the 

same side as the intelligence services, so different methods have 

been used to recruit them, mainly involving deals and bribery. 

Most nations have some form of intelligence service. There can 

be no doubt that intelligence is necessary to combat the many 

scourges that beset modern society, including terrorism, organized 

crime, people trafficking, and the drugs trade. However, intelligence has only two legitimate aims: The prevention and the detection of crime. Most unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, it has become apparent that gathering of intelligence for its own sake——

[The prepared statement of Ms. Winter follows:]

41


52985d-1.eps
42


52985d-2.eps
43


52985d-3.eps
44


52985d-4.eps
45


52985d-5.eps
46


52985d-6.eps
47


52985d-7.eps
48

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt you, I thought what was fascinating, and I knew you were here listening to the Baroness’ testimony, she related that one anecdote about the stopping of a motor 

vehicle based on informant information, and yet, the three individuals in the vehicle were all informants. That is truly an Alice in 

Wonderland vision, if you will, where up is down and down is up, 

and if we are going to do something about crime, maybe if all of 

the informants were prosecuted and incarcerated, we would see a 

dramatic reduction in crime. 

Ms. WINTER. We would, but I think the difficulty there would be 

that many of them could say that they had been coerced, that they 

had been put under pressure, on them or on their family, and that 

they were in an impossible position, and it is not simply an issue 

of those who act as informants. It is those who recruit them and 

those who handle them and mishandle them. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. You know, let me—we talk about collusion, but I think there is something more fundamental, and let me 

put this out to all of you, but let me direct it first to Ms. Winter. 

Obviously, it is difficult to determine whether collusion has occurred, because as you said, we are operating in a clandestine 

world, but the predicate to determining the truth has to be information. All too often in this country now, there is, in my judgment, 

a classification system that has no basis in reality. 

I know I have attended classified briefings, and in my opinion 

and in my judgment, they ought never to have been classified. I 

guess what I am looking for—and what occurred recently was, and 

I was surprised, to be honest with you, that the Obama Justice Department continued to press the British Government not to reveal 

certain information in a case that was being pursued in British 

courts, and the British Government would not release that particular information. 

I have grave concerns about the functioning of democracy with 

a continued over-reliance, without compromising national security, 

on classification. How do we ever get to the point where the truth 

of the murder of John Finucane’s father and Raymond McCord’s 


52985d-8.eps
49

son ever come to light if we continue to say, we can’t, that is a 

state secret, that implicates national security, and when we review 

these records decades later, we discover, that was an inaccurate assessment? 

That information has to be made public, in my judgment, if we 

are going to continue to maintain faith of the American people and 

the people in Ireland and Britain and Wales in terms of the integrity of the criminal justice system. 

Ms. WINTER. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and just to give 

you an anecdotal example, in Judge Cory’s report about Rosemary 

Nelson, I myself was mentioned, but the government saw fit to 

refer to me as Ms. D. Now, there was no secret about who I was 

and I had no problem with being named in that report, but that 

is a good example of that——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, isn’t it really absurd? 

Ms. WINTER. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, we are here with, we have present here 

two families that have endured a horrific loss, but this, I daresay, 

is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. What else has gone on that we 

are unaware of? What else has gone on? And for democracy to be 

shielded from, or truth, if you will, to be shielded by national security, there has to be some other mechanism outside of intelligence 

agencies that reviews (A) the classification issue, and whether it is 

truly a state secret, or whether there are grounds for that information to be revealed. We cannot continue, as the world’s leading democracies, to continue going in that trend. 

Ms. WINTER. I think that is where the role of lawyers is so important. Certainly in the Finucane case, the lawyers for 19, 20 

years now have been asking questions and refusing to accept no for 

an answer, and a lot of information has come out. In the case that 

you referred to about British and American intelligence, it was the 

judiciary who said, this is not information which should be classified, and we rely on their independence to——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right, but it doesn’t get to the judiciary. 

Ms. WINTER. Not always, no, but I guess it is our job as NGOs 

and lawyers to try and make sure that it does. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I guess what I am saying, Ms. Winter, is that it 

ought not to be. It ought not to be. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just 

say, we shouldn’t be here today. The British Government made solemn commitments which helped bring into bloom the Good Friday 

Agreement at Weston Park. Those agreements have not been lived 

up to, and I say that with great sadness. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that a letter that Congressman Neal and I sent to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last spring, this past spring, 

be made a part of the record, as well as two other pieces of correspondence, including an answer back from the Right Honorable 

Shaun Woodward, in which he says, of Mr. Finucane, he says, ‘‘We 

are currently in correspondence with their,’’ your, ‘‘legal advisors 

about the basis upon which an inquiry would be established. We 

have offered to meet with their legal team in the summer. Only 

once these discussions with the family and their legal representaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\102209\52985 HFA PsN: SHIRL
50

tives have concluded will we be in a position to take a decision 

about the way forward.’’

I am wondering if those meetings took place, why does it seem 

so unclear to the British Government as to how they should proceed? Judge Cory couldn’t have been more clear. As he said in his 

letter, and he said it repeatedly in testimony here in Washington 

as well as elsewhere, that the 1921 Public Inquiry Act is clearly 

what he had in mind in terms of the legal framework in which the 

inquiry would ensue. He also made it very clear, as did we, as did 

so many others, that as the Inquiries Act was being considered by 

the House of Commons and then eventually enacted into law, that 

we saw that there was a cover-up in the making, and warned them 

that we thought that this was being done in a way to give veto 

power over evidence, over information that could be damning to 

certain people within the British Government and within the RUC 

and elsewhere. 

So, about those meetings, did they occur, or where are we in 

terms of the inquiry, because it seems to me that there seems to 

be a calculus being made on the part of leaders in the British Government that if you delay this long enough, it will somehow go 

away. And again, I want to thank Chairman Delahunt for convening this hearing and making it absolutely clear that, in a bipartisan way, this is not going away on this side of the Atlantic. 

I don’t think it is going away in Northern Ireland either. As we 

have seen with our own civil rights cases that date back to Martin 

Luther King’s days, there is no statute of limitations on murder 

and on collusion, and as Nuala O’Loan said, there is no crime of 

collusion, but there are crimes of aiding and abetting, conspiracy, 

and other misconduct by police or other officers who are in some 

kind of law enforcement or government employment. 

So first of all, Mr. Finucane, if you could answer those questions, 

and——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Finucane, before you respond, if the gentleman would yield to me——

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have been visited by members of the Parliament, the British Parliament, about their concern about the 

issues I just discussed regarding secrecy and state secrets, and the 

fact that they share those concerns. It wasn’t specific to the 

Finucane case or the McCord case, but I detect within the House 

of Commons a genuine concern about the free flow of information 

to those who are members of Parliament and who have oversight 

responsibility and who share our concern about accountability, and 

Mr. Smith, maybe you and I or some of our colleagues ought to consider contacting members of the British Parliament, the House of 

Commons, and work in conjunction in a collaborative effort to discuss, not just these cases, but the mechanisms which I am sure 

could be agreed to that would ensure that there is accountability 

among the intelligence services, and I think I daresay that many 

in the intelligence circles would welcome that clarity, because they 

ought not to have to operate in this murky world where many of 

them really are, I believe, unclear as to where the lines are and 

what they will have to respond to. 

51

It is just a suggestion and you can comment on that. Mr. 

Finucane, feel free to respond now to Mr. Smith’s question. 

Mr. FINUCANE. Thank you. 

You said at the start that we shouldn’t be here, and I agree with 

that, but if it is not too much of a contradiction, I again thank the 

committee and the chairman for inviting me here and I am glad 

to be here to address our concerns. In relation to whether we have 

met with the British Government, and by way, it would be our 

legal team, no, in short. That meeting hasn’t happened. It would 

be our conclusion, and I believe it is reflected in the correspondence 

that has been put into the record today that that has been as a result of a deliberate policy of delay engaged on behalf of the British 

Government. 

There is due to be a meeting in November between the British 

Government’s legal advisors and our legal advisors, and it is very 

much a meeting that we have pushed. Whilst we are not happy 

with the Inquiries Act, we see no merit in standing outside shouting and complaining about it. We want to be involved in an inquiry 

that is credible and we have made steps to engage with the British 

Government to see, is there any common ground that we could possibly share to enable an inquiry to get up and running, because 

delay does not suit my interests, my family’s interests, and I would 

respectfully submit, the interests of this committee and the international human rights community. 

That meeting is due to take place in November, and if you will 

allow me just to comment briefly as to why the meeting is taking 

place, it is concerned primarily with what is called a restriction notice, the power by which the Inquiries Act gives a minister in the 

British Government the power to withhold evidence, the power to 

have hearings held in private, and what I would say in respect of 

the issue of national security, my family does not wish to be reckless or immature with regard to issues of national security, but to 

quote Justice Peter Cory, who put it a lot more eloquently than I 

could, he stated that legislation prior to the Inquiries Act was capable of dealing with the security of the realm, as he put, quite sufficiently, and what we want, we knew that we were only going to 

get one shot at an inquiry and we want that to be a credible shot. 

We don’t want to go into an inquiry knowing that it is not going 

to get to the truth and then complain about it at the end. What 

we want is a level playing field whereby, if there is an issue, perhaps dealing with national security, if that does come up, then it 

is the inquiry itself, it is the panel of judges itself who makes that 

decision. We may not like the decision. The British Government’s 

lawyers will make their representations, we would make our representations, but we have to have trust and faith in the inquiry as 

it is constituted. 

The way it stands currently is that even if the inquiry itself 

would agree with our representations, the British Government 

would have the ultimate control, and that is what we are attempting to negotiate with the British Government at present, but it is 

a frustration that that hasn’t happened as yet. I was also very encouraged by the opening remarks by, I think, everybody, to be fair, 

in the committee, and that is that I think a democracy and society 

is greatly undermined, and I echo your concerns, Mr. Chairman, if 

52

these matters are shied away from, and it is unfortunate that presently within Northern Ireland there remains elements who wish to 

capitalize upon any aspect of insecurity that still exists in our society. 

I believe shying away from dealing with these matters only adds 

to that insecurity and I don’t think would assist or lead toward the 

building of a very concrete and lasting peace. I think it is a difficult 

issue. There is no shying away from that, but I think it is an issue 

that must be met, and I would also ask that this committee keeps 

up its work and keeps the focus and the pressure on this issue. 

There may or there may not be a change of government in the 

United Kingdom in the near future. 

My father’s murder took place under a Conservative government. 

We would allege that the cover-up is continued, you know, in a bipartisan fashion, whether it is Conservative or Labor, but we 

would certainly not be optimistic that a Conservative government 

would have any appetite toward looking at these matters, as they 

would probably say it is a matter that is probably best left in the 

past, and I would again encourage all of you who are here today 

to not allow them to say that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me interrupt, because what I found fascinating, Mr. Finucane, are those MPs that have visited with me 

are Conservative, and clearly, my politics tend to go in another direction, and yet, the most outspoken critics of secrecy, if you will, 

in government, at least those that I have dealt with, are Conservative members of the House of Commons, which I found rather 

ironic and surprising. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, let me just comment briefly that I actually 

brought up a resolution at the OSCE, the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe, about defense attorneys and the protection of defense attorneys, that you put sandbags around those men 

and women who defend, even if it is not ‘‘politically correct.’’ I am 

glad to hear the chairman talk about a new openness on the part 

of the MPs, because as a result of that, the British members of the 

Parliament at the OSCE, and they had a sizable delegation, 

wouldn’t even meet with us and discontinued for the next year 

what had been a friendly get-together every year. 

Thankfully, we are back to doing that again, over some cocktails 

or tea or whatever, but it hit a raw nerve then and hopefully, some 

time and new people in the Parliament opens up an opportunity to 

say, you know, impunity can’t be covered up, and so I thank you. 

I am glad to hear some of those new perspectives because I was 

persona non grata when I offered that resolution at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly with regards to the British parliamentarians. 

Let me just ask a couple of very brief questions. Nuala O’Loan 

had said earlier, Mr. McCord, how 20 recommendations were in her 

report, which were accepted by the chief constable—and Ms. Winter, you might want to touch on this as well—then what? You 

know, it is as if reporting is done and the actionable evidence that 

may be gleaned from it does not get used. Where are the prosecutions? I mean, your frustration, just like Mr. Finucane’s, has to be 

beyond words. Here is a government that dictates to the world, 

says to the world that they believe in the rule of law, that says that 

their model, the British style of legal systems is something to be 

53

emulated, and yet there is this black cloud over how they have 

dealt with you, Mr. McCord, and you as well, Mr. Finucane. 

What happened after those recommendations were made, and 

while answering this—and Ms. Winter, you might want to touch on 

this—Al Hutchinson, the new Ombudsman, does his office, does 

that have the power, does it have the passion, does it have the resources? Is the individual, Mr. Hutchinson himself, like Nuala 

O’Loan, who is very approachable, absolutely transparent, one of 

the most transparent public officials I have ever met? 

She just cared about getting to the truth. Wherever and whoever 

it may bring embarrassment to was not even an issue. Do we have 

that same kind of access to the new Ombudsman, and how well is 

that office functioning, Mr. McCord? 

Mr. MCCORD. First of all, the new recommendations haven’t 

brought myself any closer to having convictions in the murder of 

my son. It hasn’t brought the other families in Nuala’s report any 

closer to justice. The British Government still won’t put their 

hands up and admit that went on. Nuala quite rightly said that 

they accepted the report, but you know, we have listened to Nuala 

and the rest who speak here today in relation to collusion, policemen destroying documents. No police officers have been charged. 

I have been fighting for 12 years for justice for my son. You 

know, no one has explained to me how this affects national security. They are letting a serial killer stay on the books. It is not as 

if the Russians were coming. You know, and Mark Haddock wasn’t 

the only one. It was right across the board and all the 

paramilitaries, and the Pat Finucane murder is the same. Families 

have been told lies, cover-ups. When new laws have been brought 

out, new regulations, the British Government has quite blatantly 

changed it to suit themselves. 

You know, all the families want, which people are entitled to 

throughout the world, is truth and justice, and we are being denied 

it by a policy of collusion that the British Government has done, 

not with criminals, with terrorist organizations. These are the people who preach to the rest of the world and condemn terrorist 

atrocities, but they are quite willing to pay terrorists back home in 

Northern Ireland all through the Troubles. 

Referring to the current Police Ombudsman, I have a current 

complaint there regarding Sir Ronnie Flanagan. I have no faith in 

the current Police Ombudsman, and the best way I can put it, it 

is like chalk and cheese dealing with him and dealing with Nuala. 

I have complete confidence in Nuala O’Loan. She is very up-front, 

very sympathetic, and you know, I have met Al Hutchinson and the 

complaint just went nowhere. I don’t forget the words that Ronnie 

Flanagan said to me in front of my MP in ’98 once after my son 

was murdered, ‘‘Murderers don’t work for the RUC,’’ and we have 

a chief constable who told the father of a victim of one of the people 

who was working for him at the time lies. 

We want the truth. We are not asking for people to be hung up 

outside and put against the wall and shot. We want what every 

person in the world is entitled to, and that is truth and justice, but 

unfortunately, the British Government have denied us it. They arrested me many times in the past to try and silence me. One of the 

most positive things that has come out of this has been the formaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\102209\52985 HFA PsN: SHIRL
54

tion of the Historical Enquiries Team, and they are dealing with 

Operation Ballast. 

They have arrested something like 12 members of Haddock’s old 

mob, the majority of them informants, but as the man that is running HET has said to me, this could have and should have been 

done 12 years ago when your son was murdered, and I would like 

this opportunity now to say that I believe one of the ways forward 

to help these families in Operation Ballast is for Gordon Brown to 

give proper funding to the HET team, show that he means business. Don’t be throwing them pennies. 

Give them a proper funding, and I am confident that this police 

unit, which is made up of Englishmen, will deliver for a lot of victims. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Engel 

and also note that really the leader on these issues in the United 

States Congress is sitting in the audience, my colleague from Massachusetts, Richie Neal. Richie, if you want to come up to the dais, 

you are very welcome. I know that you know these issues as well 

as anyone, and I am sure you know more people in the audience 

than anyone here. So the choice is yours. 

Eliot, would you care to make a comment or ask a question? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I am 

glad that you mentioned Richie Neal, who is my classmate. We 

came to Congress together in January 1989, and I have been proud 

to work with him on these issues of concern involving Northern Ireland for 21 years, and I can tell you we have all worked hard, but 

no one has worked harder and has accomplished more than Richie 

Neal. So I am glad he is here, and you know, we first of all thank 

all three of you for your courage, particularly Mr. Finucane, who 

has been in my office with his mom many times, and Mr. McCord, 

and I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Winter yesterday. 

You know, one of the things that really strikes me with all the 

things that have happened, there has been a complacency that has 

set in. People think that with the signing of the Good Friday Accords, everything is hunky-dory and we needn’t worry about these 

things, and in fact, I would daresay that some of the people will 

accuse you, Mr. Finucane and you, Mr. McCord, of living in the 

past and wallowing in the past and bringing up things that are inconvenient. 

We have our former Vice President Al Gore who talks a lot about 

global warming and he produced his film called ‘‘An Inconvenient 

Truth,’’ and I would say what the three of you are doing is reminding all of us of an inconvenient truth: That there are still festering 

sores from the inequities in the North of Ireland, and that these 

sores will not go away, will never go away, but they certainly won’t 

go away as long as the injustice is still there and the perpetrators 

of this collusion are not brought to justice. 

I just want to also acknowledge a good friend of mine in the audience, Malachy McAllister. We have been, and Mr. Smith and Mr. 

Neal and I and others have all been involved for many years in the 

fight to keep him in the United States, and that is something 

where many officials in the United States have been less than stellar about, and some have been very good and that is one of the reasons why Mr. McAllister is still here, but we need to also close the 

55

book on his case, and that is something in the United States that 

we must deal with, and it is he and others who are still kind of 

out there in limbo, so far being allowed to stay, but not really being 

allowed to integrate into U.S. society without any kinds of worries. 

It is a disgrace and it should end. I have gotten to know Malachy 

very well and frankly, I don’t know how he sleeps at night knowing 

that his future is sort of uncertain and it is hanging by the whims 

of whoever happens to get elected or appointed to highest office. It 

should just end, and so we needn’t be illusioned that somehow or 

other, we in the United States are looking at Britain and looking 

at their policies and are being critical of them, and rightfully, we 

should be, but we have enough of our own policies in the United 

States that have not been ameliorated through many, many long 

years, and we need to change. 

It always strikes me as, you know, for all the criticism of Britain, 

and I have been, believe me, there up-front publicly criticizing 

them for many years about their policies, much worse in the past 

than it is now, but we still have these festering sores, very often 

it seems to us that the United States Government is still fighting 

the fight, even where some in the British Government have thrown 

up their hands and said okay, we concede certain things and we 

put things in the past, some in the U.S. Government are still fighting the fight, still fighting the old British fight, and that is why 

Malachy and others don’t yet have comfort to have their status regulated and approved to stay here indefinitely, and I just want to 

raise that, Mr. Chairman, because I think that we sometimes feel, 

well, you know, these other countries, these British, they are not 

doing right. 

We are not still doing right by our people, and we need to do it. 

I just have one question if you will——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Eliot, if I can just make a point, because two of 

our witnesses have to leave almost in the next several minutes, so 

I am going to ask you to send your question to the committee. 

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I am just going to ask Congressman Neal 

if he wants to make any comment. Richie? 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 

Mr. Smith and Mr. Engel. Your credentials on these issues are, in 

my judgment, consistent over decades. I am grateful for the notion 

that again today that you have raised the specter of some of these 

cases. Thirty-one years ago when Bobby Sands died as a young city 

council member in Springfield, I became immersed in the details of 

what was happening across the North of Ireland, and I must tell 

you that it is important to acknowledge today how far we have 

come, and the North of Ireland now is a society that is in transformation. 

Ancient adversaries are now working together in a power-sharing 

government and political objectives are now pursued through exclusively peaceful means. People around the world now look to the 

North of Ireland as a model for successful conflict resolution. We 

are at another critical point in the peace process with talks progressing on the transfer of policing and justice powers from London 

to Belfast, and I have been in the middle of many of those discussions and negotiations. 

56

I am confident that that final act of devolution will be completed 

soon. What I think we need to remind ourselves of today is, we frequently were making progress even when we didn’t see it, and 

much of that success is due to the tireless work of those in the 

Irish Government, the British Government, the American Government, whose representatives are here today, and indeed, the political parties in the North of Ireland who have committed themselves 

to a more prosperous and peaceful future. 

Prime Minister Brown and the Taoiseach Brian Cowen, they 

should be acknowledged as well for their continued interest and 

leadership. I think the United States in its role as an honest broker 

has also has also helped move the process forward at critical moments and we should applaud Secretary Clinton for this past week 

and the success that she had in her visit to the island where she 

challenged the political parties to move forward for the last pivotal 

piece in the puzzle. 

When it comes to the pursuit of justice and accountability and 

the truth in the North, I have had a long history of being outspoken, and I think it is important to recognize where many of 

these issues turned out. I supported the Guilford Four, who were 

wrongly convicted. I spoke out on behalf of the Birmingham Six, 

whose convictions were overturned. I fought vigorously against the 

deportation of Joe Doherty, including a meeting in the Attorney 

General’s office, Janet Reno, and I certainly was highly critical of 

the killing of the unarmed Gibraltar Three. 

The deportee case turned out to be a successful one for us, and 

I certainly encouraged aggressively an independent inquiry into the 

events of Bloody Sunday, which I think remains the most important element of our discussions about the past, and I hope that 

Lord Saville’s report will be published soon. I have also urged 

Hugh Ward and Shaun Woodward to pay attention to these highprofile cases, as recently as this past summer in London. 

I have said publicly and privately that an independent inquiry 

into several of the most high-profile and emblematic cases would 

help to heal old wounds and address the past. I believe these inquiries would promote reconciliation and healing and bring a measure of closure for many of those touched by the Troubles. In my 

opinion, there are four cases that deserve a full and public hearing: 

Raymond McCord, Jr., Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and the 

Billy Wright case are the most prominent, along with a full and 

honest independent inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. 

I want to say this as well, that when you talk about success that 

we don’t see, it is members of the Nationalist community in the 

North who have urged me to stand up on behalf of Ray McCord because they think that that is a very important part of the healing 

process, and he knows that and I have passed that information on 

to him before. I have known Geraldine Finucane and her family for 

two decades. I remember when they were all young and I met them 

in Derry for the first time, and I promised her that I am going to 

continue my efforts to secure an independent inquiry into the death 

of her husband. Her family is here today and we want to acknowledge them for their continued courage. 

I have also made a commitment to Ray McCord, as he knows, 

and I hope that others here will sign a letter to Prime Minister 

57

Gordon Brown requesting that he personally meet with Mr. 

McCord. As chairman of the Friends of Ireland, I want to ask my 

colleagues to co-sign that letter and we will get it off very, very 

quickly, and I know with Ray’s testimony today, it only helps our 

argument. If we are to overcome the divisions that exist in the 

North of Ireland, we must commit ourselves to a process of reconciliation. 

After years of conflict, I believe the people in the North want to 

live a peaceful and prosperous life, and I do acknowledge that we 

can’t revisit every case, but I do think these high-profile cases 

would go a long way, with some others, of ensuring that as we go 

forward there will at least be an honest acknowledgment of what 

happened in the past. We have had much success, and I hope that 

public and independent inquiries will proceed and I hope that the 

witnesses that are here today will continue this fight, because I 

must tell you, I think that the American dimension has been indispensable in helping us to bring these cases forward. 

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for providing the time 

to me. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for the 

statement, and I am sure that all of us will sign that letter to the 

Prime Minister. I am going to end with my friend and colleague to 

my left, to my physical left, I should say, Mr. Smith, who has a 

question for Jane Winter. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Well, I do want to thank you 

again, Chairman Delahunt, for this extremely important hearing 

and the timeliness of it, and so I thank you for arranging for this 

today. You know, a father fighting for justice for his murdered son, 

a son fighting for justice for his murdered dad, both seeking an end 

to the, as Mr. McCord put it earlier, cover-ups and lies—no coverup, however, is ever absolute. No cover-up is forever and I think 

it is important that the British Government know that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, will never cease in getting to the facts, 

getting to the truth, and most importantly, getting to the prosecutions that I think just have to occur in order for there to be true 

reconciliation and healing. 

I would like to ask Ms. Winter, if you could, to comment on the 

current Ombudsman, and also on her about, you know, all prosecutors have discretion, prosecurial discretion as to what they emphasize. Where you put your resources makes all the difference in 

what you actually ultimately get convictions on. In the cases of Pat 

Finucane and of course, Mr. McCord, Raymond McCord, how would 

you rate whether or not they are serious about going wherever the 

information, wherever the evidence may lead? And I thank you 

again. 

Ms. WINTER. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Could I just preface my remarks by drawing the committee’s attention to the six recommendations at the end of my testimony for action, which I hope 

that the committee will consider taking on——

Mr. DELAHUNT. So noted. 

Ms. WINTER [continuing]. On behalf of both Mr. McCord and Mr. 

Finucane, as well as other matters. In relation to the Police Ombudsman, I do believe that Al Hutchinson is as independent as 

Nuala O’Loan. He has a very different style and I think he has less 

58

of an appetite for looking at the past and more of an appetite for 

dealing with current policing. So I agree with Raymond McCord, 

there is an element of chalk and cheese there. It is a different approach, but I don’t believe that he lacks independence. 

I do believe, however, that he lacks resources. Nuala O’Loan said 

that she wasn’t sure, but I am here to tell you that I have spoken 

recently with the Ombudsman’s office and they are severely underresourced, and——

Mr. SMITH. What does that mean in terms of actual money? 

Ms. WINTER. I am afraid I don’t know the actual figures, but 

they were talking about having to make very significant cuts, 

which clearly means that they cannot carry out their duties in any 

kind of timely fashion, which is not helpful, and the Historical 

Enquiries Team is in the same boat, and I absolutely echo what 

Raymond has said about needing to resource them fully until such 

time as any kind of amalgamation may take place between the two 

organizations for dealing with cases arising out of the conflict. 

In relation to the director of Public Prosecutions, I regret to say 

that over the years, we have had many, many questions about decisions taken by his office, not just in relation to the Finucane and 

McCord case, but in many other cases where there have been no 

reasons given for failing to prosecute cases which seem to us to 

merit prosecution, and sometimes prosecutions have gone ahead 

but deals have been done which have rendered the outcome of the 

case a travesty of justice for the victims, and there have recently 

been some moves by the DPP’s office to make themselves more 

transparent and we really welcome those, but there needs to be a 

lot more done before we would consider them to be a fully functioning independent office. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, I want to extend the gratitude of the 

committee for your appearance here, for your testimony, and it was 

an excellent hearing. Thank you, and God speed. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60


52985n.eps
61


52985m.eps
62


52985e-1.eps
63

Æ


52985e-2.eps