Return to
Free
JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source
Welcome to the Fifth Page of the Ludlow Family's website for the Seamus Ludlow Truth and Justice Campaign. This page was last updated:16/01/03 Print this page
Please use the sliding menu at left for navigation through the Ludlow family's website. There are similar menus on other pages. Just move the cursor to the left to draw the menu out.
Return to
A photograph of Seamus Ludlow, Thistlecross, Mountpleasant, Dundalk, County Louth, who was abducted and murdered by UDR/Red Hand Commando, on 1/2 May 1976. Last updated:16/01/03
The Irish Victims Commission Calls for a Private Inquiry.
The Ludlow family circle reacted with disbelief to
the announcement on 5 August 1999 of a recommendation by Mr. John Wilson, the Irish
Victims Commissioner, and former Dublin cabinet minister
(pictured below), that any proposed inquiry into the murder of
Seamus Ludlow, like that into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings,
should be held in private, but also that the final report should
not be published. This was certainly not the public inquiry that the Ludlow
family was demanding.
Mr. Wilson had made contact with a member of the Ludlow family during the course of his inquiry and he was given a detailed account of Seamus Ludlow's murder and its cruel aftermath of lies, smears and cover-up. It was clearly hoped that he would look sympathetically at the Ludlow family's demand for a public inquiry. The outcome of his inquiry brought disappointment to the family.
The Ludlow family wrote restrained letters almost
immediately to the Irish Victims Commissioner and to the Taoiseach
indicating their anger at the outcome of his report. The matter
was then left in the careful hands of the Ludlow family's
solicitor.
Click on this photograph of the memorial plaque in the lane where Seamus Ludlow died to link to the Text of the independent British Irish Rights Watch report on the death of this innocent man.
This Irish Victims Commissioner's decision, like the later decision by the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), of 15 October 1999, not to prosecute the four Loyalist prime suspects for the murder of Seamus Ludlow, indicates the reluctance of the authorities on both sides of the Irish border to face up to the injustice that was perpetrated against the Ludlow family since the murder of their innocent relative.
The Victims Commission Report, A Place and a Name,
seen here in a screenshot from TV3's 20/20 investigation of the
Ludlow murder, was released at a press conference in Dublin on 5
August 1999. 
Click on this photograph of the Victims Commission's report to link to an account of recent events in the Ludlow family's campaign for truth and justice.
While members of Justice for the Forgotten, made up of victims and survivors of the Dublin and Monaghan atrocity and their supporters, were present at the release of the Victims Commission's report, the Ludlow family was absent, having not been informed that the announcement was to be made in public. Thus the Dublin and Monaghan families were able to make their own position clear in a very public way while the Ludlow family's own objections to the Wilson Report went unheard. Why was the Ludlow family not informed and invited to the Launch of this report?
Cynics could argue that, rather like the Seamus Ludlow inquest in 1976, here was an occasion where the authorities did not want the Ludlow family present. The Ludlow case is particularly damaging to the Dublin authorities, particularly the Gardai and the Department of Justice, not least because so much is already known about the killers and the means which were adopted by the Gardai to ensure that they were never caught. Unlike the other cases where injustice has followed upon atrocity, the Seamus Ludlow case is the one where specific charges can be laid against specific Garda officers, and it is the only case where prime suspects have been arrested and prosecutions still seemed possible.
While the Ludlow family welcomed the Irish Victims Commission's call for an inquiry there was great anger at its recommendations that any inquiry should be held in private and the findings not published. It was clear to the family that the state was intent upon another cover-up, that nothing had been learned from the sorry mess that was created during the 1970s.
The state was protecting itself in the only way it could, by limiting the extent to which the Ludlow family and the public at large could hear the truth about Seamus Ludlow's murder and the subsequent cover-up. Family members were prompted to ask what dirty secrets are they trying to protect, and whose reputations are placed before the need for truth and accountability.
Photographed here is Mr. John Wilson, the Irish Victims Commissioner, whose final Report
called for a private inquiry into Seamus Ludlow's murder, with
the findings kept secret so as not to compromise expected court
proceedings in the North. Now that none of the four Loyalist suspects
are being charged with any offence, the Ludlow family is
demanding a complete rethink of Mr. Wilson's proposals. Click on the photograph
to link to an account of the internal Garda investigation led by Chief
Superintendent Ted Murphy.
The Victims Commission calls for a judicial inquiry into the Ludlow murder, supposedly, but not necessarily, one that will have a wider remit than the present internal Garda inquiry which merely centres on the Garda handling of the case. That inquiry followed the completion of the previous Murphy Inquiry earlier in 1999 which was submitted to the Government.
The Report contains references to Seamus Ludlow, about which the Ludlow family will have more to say: In the section entitled What they told us, Mr. Wilson moves on to a discussion about truth and justice (at 3.5.1), then continues with seeking the truth (at 3.5.2.) with particular emphasis on the Dublin Monaghan bombings (at 3.5.3), as well as very briefly mentioning the victims of other outrages such as Sackville Place and Liberty Hall bombings of December 1972, and the Dundalk bombing of December 1975 (at 3.5.4), before he Report turns to Seamus Ludlow:
"3.5.5 The case of Seamus Ludlow.
One such family is that of Seamus Ludlow who was murdered on 1st May, 1976.
British Irish Rights Watch have recently called for a Public Inquiry into this case. I understand that a file is now with the DPP in Northern Ireland. The victim's family, however, make the argument that a Criminal Trial, if one does take place, will not necessarily bring out the full facts of the case because it may not be relevant or necessary to do so, particularly if the accused plead guilty. Some of the matters they would like investigated relate not directly to the crime itself but to the investigation of the crime. I find the allegations about the conduct of certain Gardai Siochana and about the conduct of the investigation itself, very disturbing."
In the next section Conclusions and Recommendations (at 4.5.3), the Report comments again on the Seamus Ludlow case:
Because a file on this case is now with the DPP in Northern Ireland, I am anxious that no recommendation of mine should endanger the prosecution of any guilty party. At the same time I am aware of the family's strong wish that the full truth of the case should be brought to light. I am swayed by their argument that a Criminal Trial will not necessarily bring out the full facts of the case. I recommend that an enquiry should be conducted into this case along the lines of the enquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. To avoid compromising any criminal prosecution, this enquiry should not publish its report until any prosecution has finished, unless no prosecution has been initiated before the completion of the enquiry or within twelve months, whichever is the later.
The Report (at 4.5.2 on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings) recommended that the Government should choose a former Supreme Court Judge to enquire "privately" into the bombings and it was this solution, albeit without publication of a final report which he had recommended for the Seamus Ludlow case. This latter provision for non-publication of the final report is now irrelevant since the Northern Ireland DPP has decided that there will be no prosecutions in this case. The Ludlow family believes that there can be no possible excuse for secrecy, the report must be published.
The Ludlow family was appalled at the Irish Victims Commission's
recommendations but were unable to register their feelings as
forcefully as the Dublin families until the next day when Kevin
Ludlow and Jimmy Sharkey were interviewed for the TV3 news.
Kevin Ludlow, pictured here, and Jimmy Sharkey criticised the Irish authorities for only wanting to tell the Ludlow family what they wanted the family to know and for their unwillingness to have a public inquiry. Click on the photograph to link to a report of support from Louth County Council.
This was clearly not the full and independent inquiry which the family had been campaigning for. It looked suspiciously like another cover-up in the making with the authorities prepared to let the family know what they wanted them to know. There were questions of whether the family would have access to the inquiry, whether they would be present at hearings, whether their lawyers could subpoena and question witnesses, and would the final report ever be published.
The family also felt that any prosecutions in the Six Counties should not in any way delay publication of the report. The killers' and their crime were not what the inquiry was specifically about, at least in the minds of the Ludlow family. The inquiry should concentrate only on the conduct of the original investigation by the Garda in 1976, and its suspension after only three weeks. It should also concentrate on the smearing of Seamus Ludlow, on the failure to take action after receiving the RUC file in 1979. It should identify those Garda officers, and government officials or whoever was responsible for these decisions and it should recommend legal action to be taken against those who were responsible.
The Wilson Report boded ill for the future also in that it set a poor example for the British to follow with regard to the actions of the RUC and the British Army in colluding with the Garda in protecting Seamus Ludlow's UDR/Red Hand Commando killers. To date, the British authorities in the North have never responded to the family's demands for a public inquiry in the Six Counties. The recent DPP's decision not to prosecute any of the four loyalist suspects, including the two who made admissions implicating themselves and others, makes for a very bad precedent in that jurisdiction.
The Ludlow family agree with Louth County Councillor Arthur Morgan (Sinn Fein) in his statement : "If it is to have any real value, the inquiry must be held in public. There are vital questions to be answered by State authorities, including the Garda, the Garda Special Branch in Louth and Dublin and Irish Army Intelligence." His party colleague Caoimhghin O Caoláin, in a letter to the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern recorded his disappointment at the recommendation regarding the Dublin-Monaghan and Ludlow cases. Mr. O Caolain has been a strong supporter of the family's campaign. He was a prominent attendee at the Ludlow family's press conference on 18 February 1999 and he has maintained regular correspondence with a member of the family.
In a press release from the Minister for Justice in Dublin on the Victim Commission's Report kindly forwarded to Jimmy Sharkey by Margaret Urwin, Secretary of Justice for the Forgotten, the Committee of Victims and Relatives seeking justice for the Dublin and Monaghan bombing outrages of 17 May, 1974, it was noted that "interested parties" were invited to "send their comments on the report" to the Secretary General, Department of Justice to arrive by 5 November 1999. This press release was promptly passed to the family's solicitor who sent off a letter with the family's comments as requested.
As the Victims Commission was now wound up, having released its Report, its recommendations were now the responsibility of the Department of Justice - a development surely not welcomed by the Ludlow family.
Also received from Margaret Urwin was a copy of the Irish Government's 11-page assessment of the BIRW report on the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, which was sent to the British secretary of state Mo Mowlam in the North by Liz O'Donnell, Irish Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, with a covering letter dated 13 April 1999. This letter is of significance in that it spells out the Dublin government's justification in calling for a public inquiry in the North into the murder of the late Mr. Finucane. The Ludlow family feels that the compelling reasons are present also in the Ludlow case. The minister wrote:
As the assessment argues, the Finucane case and the associated allegations of collusion, fulfill the fundamental requirement of a public inquiry, i.e. that the matter under consideration is of urgent public interest. The accumilated evidence is sufficient to give reasonable cause to the public to believe that collusion may have taken place. Moreover, the allegations in question serve to undermine confidence in the rule of law and the concept of equality before the law. In my view, they can only be answered with confidence - one way or the other - through the mechanism of a public inquiry.
In the Irish Government's assessment of the BIRW Report it is noted under BASIS FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY :
"that the term "urgent" should not of course be taken to mean contemporary - the Saville Inquiry is, after all, investigating events over a quarter of a century old but which remain a matter of urgent public interest.. .
"Nor should it be thought that new information is a requirement for an inquiry. That is to confuse the grounds for reopening a case before the courts with the purpose of an inquiry. . .
"A crucial question is whether the matter of public interest can reasonably be seen to justify an inquiry on the basis of merit alone. Generally inquiries are about matters in which the state or its agents (whether individuals or bodies) are believed to have been involved either through acts of omission or commission. The value of an inquiry in terms of the society as a whole is that it seeks to locate where culpability lies and thus establish a basis on which society, through its democratic system, can set about rectifying identified faults. Such faults can arise either through negligence (e.g. Dunblane) or because of systematic problems (such as institutional racism in the London Metropolitan Police in the Lawrence case)."
Here the Dublin Government is lecturing the British about doing
the decent thing in Belfast yet they now refuse to do take their
own considered advice in Dublin. It is a case of do as we say,
not as we do. The Ludlow family is satisfied that the Seamus
Ludlow murder, the Dublin, Monaghan, Dundalk and Castleblaney
bombings and many other Loyalist atrocities in the Republic
exactly fit the criteria for a public inquiry as laid down in the
above statements from the Dublin government itself.
John Wilson, the former Victims Commissioner, appeared to move his position regarding the inquiry when he was interviewed by Conor McAuley for the UTV Live Insight programme, entitled "State Silence" which was broadcast on Monday 25 October 1999. In the course of his interview Mr. Wilson appeared to say that he had always intended that the family of Seamus Ludlow and its legal representative would have full access to the inquiry judge and that they would be present at the inquiry. This is not expressly stated in the Victims Commissioner's report nor was it so stated by the Taoiseach when he announced the intention to hold an inquiry. The details of the inquiry have not been announced.
Mr. John Wilson went further when he was interviewed by Elaine Keogh for the Irish Independent newspaper of 8 November 1999. Mr. Wilson is quoted as having said that he would support the extradition of the four men allegedly involved in Seamus Ludlow's murder. Clearly, now that the northern DPP has failed to bring charges against any of the loyalist suspects, there is every reason for the Dublin authorities to revisit their decision on a private inquiry with the final report remaining private.
There are indications that the Dublin authorities may have come around to this view, as indicated by An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in his answer to a question asked by Caoimhghin O Caoláin on 2 November 1999. Mr. Ahern indicated his intention of raising the case with the British authorities and he stated that his government will "reassess what to do next".
It of course remains to be seen if Mr. Wilson's envisaged inquiry will be set up as he stated on UTV Live Insight or whether the Dublin government, after reassessing the situation, still goes ahead with its apparent intention of instituting a closed inquiry, with perhaps only very limited access for the Ludlow family to the proceedings. As one Ludlow campaign supporter has suggested, "it looks like the government has put a bit of a spin on his (Mr. Wilson's) original intentions."
Mr. Wilson appeared again on TV3's 20/20 current affairs programme on 14 November 1999, when he made the controversial and utterly baseless claim that in none of the correspondence he had received was there any mention of a public inquiry. This inaccurate statement appears to have formed at least part of the basis for the Victims Commissioner's recommendation of private inquiries into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings as well as the murder of Seamus Ludlow. Don Mullan, the journalist who reported for 20/20 and for the newspaper Ireland on Sunday (14 November), has produced documentary evidence which proves Mr. Wilson's claim to be completely without foundation. He has secured access to documents presented to Mr. Wilson by the barrister representing the Dublin-Monaghan families, Cormac O Dulachain. Mr. Mullan continues:
In his submission headed "The case for a Tribunal of Inquiry concerning the Dublin and Monaghan bombings on the 17th of May 1974", he (Mr. O Dulachain) writes:
"The victims and relatives of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings believe that a sworn public tribunal of inquiry is the existing mechanism that can address their substantive needs in the absence of a formally sworn constituted Truth Commission.
"Accordingly the victims and relatives on whose behalf this submission is made, seek the endorsement and recommendation of the Victims Commissioner for a Tribunal of Inquiry."
O Dulachain's submission also included a report from Prof Dermot Walsh, Director for the Centre for Criminal Justice, University of Limerick, which calls on the Garda Siochana to account for its investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The submission concludes:
"If an inquiry is to overcome the accountability shortcomings and serve the needs of the victims, it is essential that it should be a public judicial inquiry with full powers to call for persons, papers and records."
As far as the Ludlow family is concerned, in all correspondence they have had with the Garda and the Irish government they have stressed the absolutely dire need for a full and public inquiry. The Dublin authorities can have no possible justification for attempting to misrepresent the family's campaign for a public inquiry as a call for something less which would permit some credibility to a private inquiry.
The Ludlow family was heartened by the welcome
contribution to the 20/20 programme of Mr. Imran Khan, the eminent British solicitor, lawyer for the
family of the murdered black teenager
Stephen Lawrence. Mr. Khan
attended the recent Relatives for Justice conference at
Dungannon, where he was accompanied by the mother of the murdered
schoolboy. In the course of his interview with Don Mullan, Mr. Khan encouraged the Ludlow family and others to reject the idea
of a private inquiry.
Mr. Khan (seen in a screenshot from the programme) spoke about the recent public inquiry in England which the Lawrence family had won against great official resistance, to get to the truth of Stephen Lawrence's murder and of the racism at the heart of the London Metropolitan Police's mishandling of the murder investigation which has allowed the young man's murderers to stay free. He told Don Mullan:
"There are many reasons why the public inquiry achieved what the Lawrences wanted.
"The way witnesses gave evidence changed because they knew what they were saying would be open to public scrutiny. They couldn't hide behind the fact that what they were saying wouldn't be in the public arena."
The Ludlow family agrees with Mr. Khan's final remarks, from his own experience of the tragic Lawrence case in England, that when the authorities are reluctant to call a public inquiry it can mean that they have something to hide.
Return to Home Page.
Launch of the Border Relatives Group.
The Dundalk Democrat reports the publication of investigative journalist Joe Tiernan's controversial new book, The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings and the Murder Triangle
m.donegan@virgin.net Print this page
Copyright
© 2003 the Ludlow family. All rights reserved.
Revised: January 16, 2003
.