OUTPOST

Given the widescale, and at times inappropiate, euphoria over the publication of the Saville Inquiry, the publication this week of the Northern Ireland Police Ombundsman’s report into the Claudy bombings represented a significant (if not muted) watershed in Northern Ireland. The “blame” game so quickly played after Saville was swept under the carpet in this instance. Why? Because the issues of criminality, legitimacy and retribution have been reversed. The necessity of blame in another one of Northern Ireland’s most tragic events paints a very different picture this time.

For those unfamiliar with the Claudy bombings, it was when a trio of IRA car bombs in the rural village of Claudy in 1972 blasted nine people to death. So why the report? Well, the initial contention for the investigation centred on two concerns, the failure to convict and also possible shortcomings in the police investigation at the time. Both concerns were focused on the apparent role of a Catholic Priest Father James Chesney in the atrocity.

The report itself has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood blockbuster, explosive action (not meant to undermine severity of the event), failure of senior police figures, clandestine meetings between governmental and religious leaders, hand written notes, unidentified letters and the all important who done it? Well, let’s not refrain from the truth, and Cameronesque, expose the findings. Chesney was involved, was a leader of an IRA ring and escaped punishment due to a “collusive” (section 6.17) act between state and church. The mundane apologies ringing loudly in the media this week from the church and state remain hollow as criminality requires justice, and the opportunity for such was squandered in the original investigation. And in there, lies the essence of the report.

The report clearly states its aim:

“The objective of the Police Ombudsman’s investigation was to establish whether there was any evidence of criminality or misconduct by RUC officers in their response, if any, to Father Chesney’s alleged involvement in the Claudy bombings. It was extended to consider whether information was available to the RUC, which might have enabled them to prevent the atrocity.” (report section 3.1)

The prescribed certainty of Chesney’s alleged involvement is systematically supported in the report. Detailed intelligence of excellent depth illustrates this. His implication in the alibi for an individual arrested in connection with the bombings (who later left the country) and his superiors’ concern over his actions (Cardinal Conway desribed him as “a very bad man”) are but two of many continuous misgivings about Chesney. Of more interest, it the apparent lack of coherent framework for the pursuit of Chesney. The obvious collusion (term defined in report/act symbolised by Cardinal Conway and Secretary of State Whitelaw’s decision to relocate Chesney to Donegal to avoid arrest) equated to a rather reductionist interpretation of investigative policing. Given the passing of most RUC officers implicated by the report, and indeed by Chesney’s passing, the report will hardly fill the void left in the families of the individuals killed. Here, the comparison’s with the Saville report become more pronounced.

The more diluted response to this report can arguably be attributed to the fact that the main protagonists have passed. However, a key distinction of the Claudy bombings was that although the attack was carried out by the IRA, the victims were cross-communal.  This story was never an “us versus them” narrative. Obviously, it was designed to be as such (as indicated by the significance in the report of the fact that the perpetrators could not forward warnings due to a fault in telephone communications and also by the dubious and mysterious unidentified letter which quoted Chesney as “horrified at the injustices done to the Catholic people and decided to do something for the people”). Given the cross communal dynamic of the bombings, the partial reconciliation offered by the report represents a significant opportunity. Just as Saville, the ackowledgment of shortcomings needs to be enough. The murky undergrowth of the Troubles epitomised in this event need to be transcended, it cannot fester. With the publication of Saville, you had the fanfare in Guildhall. Claudy can mark a watershed, two communities coming together (acknowledging a common enemy and personal shortcomings). The failure of police, state, and church goes across all communities in Northern Ireland.

Time has come to move on and these reports help in that. Courage for change remains an innovative concept in Northern Ireland, a far cry from the murky depths of tragedy. Therein lies the future.