by Tom Griffin, Irish World, 8 June 2005
As this paper reported last week, former Scots Guards officer Tim Spicer has threatened to sue Irish-American newspaper the Irish Echo, and MP Sarah Teather over claims about his role in the case of Peter McBride, who was shot dead in Belfast in 1992.
The Echo last month received a letter from Lt Col Spicer's solicitors, which stated: "He had no role whatever in the death of Peter McBride. He was the commanding officer of the regiment in which two soldiers involved in Mr. McBride's death were then serving. Thereafter he stood by his men and, in due course, was vindicated in so doing."
Lt Col Spicer's position has never been vindicated by the courts in relation to the principal accusation against him.
That accusation was stated by the Pat Finucane Centre last December, when it said: "Spicer has sought to portray an entirely fictitious and untruthful version of the events preceding, during and following the actual murder."
Spicer described his actions after he learned of the killing in his autobiography, An Unorthodox Soldier, which was serialised in the Daily Mail.
"My immediate reaction was to get the soldiers back on the street," he wrote. "Both were upset, and it was common sense to get them back out there doing their jobs. It's the same principle as getting straight back on a horse when you have been thrown off. You have to do it before your nerve goes forever."
"But I was told the men were not to go back on the streets. The shooting was to be investigated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the men would probably be arrested. I thought this was very premature."
"I then went to interview the men. I was with them within two hours of the shooting, with the regimental sergeant-major, our doctor and the company commander."
"I asked these three to attend the interview and gauge the men's response, because they knew them better than I did. I thought between us we could reach a balanced judgement on what happened."
"Both men were clearly in shock. They were young - Wright just 19 and Fisher 24 - and had not been in this sort of situation before.
"They recounted their story to me and it never changed - not later, not during endless police interrogation, not to their lawyers, not during their trial never."
It was only some hours after this interview that the RUC was able to speak to Wright and Fisher, giving rise to allegations that they had been helped to prepare a defence.
Lt Col Spicer has since maintained the same version of events as Wright and Fisher, that the two soldiers believed McBride was about to throw a coffee jar bomb contained in a plastic bag he was carrying. This in spite of the fact that McBride had been searched moments earlier by members of the same patrol. The bag was subsequently found to contain a t-shirt.
At the subsequent trial, the judge said: "I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable possibility that Guardsman Fisher held or may have held an honest belief that the deceased carried or may have carried a coffee jar bomb".
The pair were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal was dismissed in 1995, and the pair were denied leave to appeal to the House of Lords a year later.
So Lt Col Spicer's version of events has never been vindicated by British justice. On the contrary the verdict of the courts remains that the account he offered in common with his soldiers was false, and false beyond reasonable doubt (this in itself raises legitimate doubts about how that account originated).
If Lt Col Spicer does not have British justice on his side, why does he believe he has been vindicated? Perhaps because he has the backing of the British Government.
It was Government ministers who decided to free Wright and Fisher in 1998. Likewise, it was ministers, civil servants and army officers, who have decided to allow the pair to remain in the army in the face of repeated condemnaton by the courts.
It appears that the British Government shares Lt Col Spicer's cavalier attitude to the rule of law, which was reflected in 1998 when his company, Sandline International, sent arms to Sierra Leone in breach of a UN arms embargo.
Given Mr Spicer's general attitude to the verdicts of the British judicial system, it is surprising that he is so keen to seek vindication in the British High Court.
Perhaps he hopes that Britain's notoriously tough libel laws will act as a deterrent to those who have called for the cancellation of the $293 million Iraq security contract held by his company Aegis Defence Services.
That is a prospect about as likely as Lt Col Spicer appearing in court to vindicate his spotless reputation.