Statewatch article: RefNo# 25491
Cory report into the murders of Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Billy Wright published
Statewatch News Online, April 2004
The Cory Report (link)
British Government's response to the report (link)
Response from Finucane family will be posted on: Pat Finucane Centre site and below

Commentary from the Committee on the Adminstration of Justice (Belfast)

FINDINGS OF JUDGE CORY
1st April 04

PAT FINUCANE

They (FRU) were aware that Nelson was a central player within the UDA, and that he had considerable influence in directing targeting operations. They were also aware that Nelson often played a direct and active role in reconnaissance missions. The provision of information to Nelson in these circumstances may be seen as evidence of collusive behaviour that had the potential to facilitate the deadly operations planned by the UDA. (page 102)

The documents I have examined disclose that Army handlers and their superiors turned a blind eye to the criminal acts of Nelson. In doing this they established a pattern of behaviour that could be characterised as collusive. (page 103)

Similarly, they indicate that SB rarely took any steps to document threats or prevent attacks by the UDA, whereas pro-active steps were routinely taken in connection with PIRA and other Republican threats. The failure to issue warnings to person targeted by the UDA often led to tragic consequences. This is indicative of attitudes with RUC SB. (page 105)

If criminal prosecutions are to proceed the practical effect might be to delay the public inquiry for at least two years. The Finucane family will be devastated. A large part of the Northern Ireland community will be frustrated. Myths and misconceptions will proliferate and hopes of peace and understanding will be eroded. This may be one of the rare situations where a public inquiry will of greater benefit to a community than prosecutions.

ROBERT HAMILL

Police officers must not act collusively by ignoring or turning a blind eye to the wrongful acts of their officers or of their servants or agents. Nor can the police act collusively by supplying information to assist those committing wrongful acts or by encouraging them to commit wrongful acts. First and foremost the actions of Reserve Constable B, if established, are capable of being found to constitute the most flagrant type of collusion. His actions did not constitute the simple turning of a blind eye. Rather they could be found to be carefully planned and premeditated actions taken to frustrate a murder investigation and to protect or to exonerate an individual who might have been guilty of murder. Steps should have been taken to obtain the clothing of Robert Hamill and those identified as the scene as taking part in the assault&the failure to take steps may indicate a bias in the police force that could amount to institutional collusion.

ROSEMARY NELSON

I am satisfied that there is evidence of collusion by Governmental Agencies in the murder of Rosemary Nelson that warrants holding a public inquiry (page 71)

RUC officers are alleged to have made highly demeaning and threatening remarks about Rosemary Nelson while questioning her clients. Among other things, they are said to have questioned her morality, made insulting sexual innuendos, described her facial scarring in cruel and debasing terms, belittled her ability as a lawyer and, perhaps most disturbingly, to have threatened her life. It is for a public inquiry to determine whether or not these remarks were made. If it is found that they were, this could constitute strong evidence of collusion. (page 66)

The NIOs mishandling of documents that were directly pertinent and vitally important to the safety of Rosemary Nelson may also indicate a level of neglect or disregard that could be found to be collusive. (page 69)

[The NIOs] failure to take any action to protect Rosemary Nelson could be found to be troubling whe

Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions oof that licence and to local copyright law. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.