as printed in the Irish News, Friday August 14
The following article from the Pat Finucane Centre was published in the Irish News today, Friday August 14, regarding the upcoming review of the life sentences imposed on two Scots Guards for the 1992 murder of Peter Mc Bride.The article includes testimony from a number of the soldiers involved in the incident that has never before been made public. It can be accessed here.
The family of murdered Belfast teenager Peter Mc Bride was informed this week by the Secretary of State that she will be considering the cases of the two Scots Guards convicted of their son's murder at the end of August.
Paradoxically a decision could therefore be made within days of the actual anniversary of Peter's murder, September 4 1992.
On that sunny morning six years ago Peter left his home to go to his sisters house. He was stopped by a patrol of the Scots Guards in Trainfield St, questioned and searched.
After some minutes Peter ran off and was pursued by members of the patrol. Minutes later he lay dying in an entry behind Upper Meadow St. He had been shot by two members of the patrol, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. The two were subsequently convicted of his murder. When Dr Mowlam reads through the transcripts of the trial and the appeal she will not find the testimony of probably the most vital military witness on that day, Lance Sergeant Swift, the patrol leader.
He was not called as a witness even though his testimony as to whether he had or had not searched Peter minutes before the shooting would surely have decided the outcome of the trial.
Writing in the Daily Mail Ludovic Kennedy claimed that Swift was not called to 'confirm' that he had not searched Peter because he had not radioed this information through to HQ and therefore had no independent corroborative evidence to support this claim.
We are therefore asked to believe that this is the reason why he was not called to give evidence which, as Kennedy admits, "might have tipped the judge's mind into believing Fisher and Wright's account of events…". The logic of this particular argument is beyond this writers comprehension.
Within the past few days the Pat Finucane Centre has come into possession of the original statements made to the RUC within hours of the shooting by Lance Sergeant Swift and Guardsman Williams, the other two soldiers on the patrol that morning. The Derry-based centre has also received a recent statement from Lance Sergeant Swift sworn in front of a solicitor in June of this year in London. That these statements clearly contradict the evidence of civilian witnesses is unsurprising; the fact that they contradict each other raises serious questions about issues at the very heart of this case.
A comparison of the statements made by Lance Sergeant Swift hours after the shooting and the sworn affidavit submitted by him in June of this year is revealing. Swift's evidence, it should pointed out, would have been absolutely vital in the actual trial itself.
In his original statement to the RUC Swift claimed that he P checked a youth who appeared "startled to see me and he had what seemed to me a suspicious object underneath his jacket supported by his right arm."
Clearly a 'terrorist suspect' as sections of the British media never fail to point out. But six years later Swift refers to a 'routine' check.
Following an apparently unsuccessful attempt to radio through to base Swift then claimed that Peter ran off on being informed that he would be searched. Civilian witnesses are adamant that he was in fact searched.
Swift claimed in both statements that he told Peter to empty his pockets on a nearby wall. This seems a peculiar request given that he says he believed Peter was carrying a suspicious and bulky object in a bag.
Why didn't he demand that Peter 'open the bag' or 'show what he was carrying' ? Before running Peter is alleged to have pulled out the patrol leader's ear piece.
In the statement made this year Swift claims that Peter not only grabbed his ear piece but that he, Swift, actually fell to the ground in the alleged altercation! Curiously this claim, which would appear to support the notion of a 'terrorist suspect', was never introduced at the trial, is not to be found in any other civilian or military statements and was not even mentioned by Swift in his original statement to the RUC.
When Peter ran off Swift admits to shouting "grab him". Again this seems a strange thing to shout if he genuinely believed himself to be dealing with a terrorist carrying a bomb. The judge also raised this point.
Those campaigning for an early release of the two claim that both men believed Peter Mc Bride to have been carrying a coffee jar bomb and assert that there was no element of premeditation. In the subsequent appeal the defence attempted to rubbish the evidence of civilian witnesses.
One witness in particular was subjected to "stringent cross- examination" regarding his evidence that he had heard one of the patrol shout "shoot the bastard." In a recent two page 'Special Investigation' in the Daily Mail Ludovic Kennedy also suggests that this evidence was introduced for the first time at the trial.
The implication is that other key evidence from this witness that Peter had been searched by Swift is 'flawed evidence'. In actual fact it can now be revealed that, within hours of the shooting, the RUC questioned one of the patrol, Guardsman Williams on precisely this point.
On page 8 of the RUC interview notes Williams is asked, "a civilian witness has told police that he saw a youth being chased by 2 soldiers and 1 of these soldiers shouted 'shoot the bastard',"
Given that this question was put by Detectives within hours of the shooting it is clearly not true that this was raised for the first time at trial.
Which brings us back to Swift. The six year gap between his two statements appears to have refreshed rather than diminished his memory on other aspects of the case. Asked in 1992 why he had commanded 'stop, don't shoot, ceasefire' to his men he replied "because a man had been hit and there was not need to expend further ammunition." Six years on, and Swift claims that the ceasefire order was given "in order to stop the risk of an innocent passer by being hurt."
In his original statement Swift claimed that the wounded man entered a house in Upper Meadow St still clutching " his bag" presumably containing the bomb. No reference was made to this by the other soldiers or by Swift in his 1998 statement.
As Peter lay dying at the rear of Upper Meadow St Swift asserts that he believed his patrol had a wounded but dangerous terrorist on their hands and that the coffee jar bomb must have been left in the house.
He alleged that he informed the RUC of this when they arrived yet the court found that no such warning was given to arriving members of the security forces. Swift admits in his original statement that he withdrew to the bottom of the lane with one of his patrol having ascertained that Peter was indeed seriously wounded "to make an assessment of the situation".
Are these the actions of men who believe that they have just detained a dangerous suspect who one of the accused believed had a gun in addition to a bomb?
Later that day Swift claimed that "my priority was not to find the coffee jar but to give help to that man before the ambulance came." But six years on and Swift recalls being "dragged away from the house by a Policeman, I argued that I was certain there was a coffee jar bomb in the house…."
Though the scene was immediately secured nothing was found.
According to a recent article in the quality Scotland On Sunday newspaper Swift was prevented from entering the house because "a lot of ladies threw ornaments at him." How very quaint! The same article reports that in the New Lodge "during the day doors remain open, not so much for access between friendly neighbours but to provide terrorists with an easy escape route."
In his latest recollections Swift also claims that he then joined the rest of his patrol who were being questioned by an RUC officer.
"I tried to stop him, he threatened to do me for obstruction." Why did he attempt to stop the RUC questioning of his men? Again none of this was mentioned in the original statement.
Fortunately, from the patrols point of view, the men were then "extracted from the area" and were not made available for questioning for several hours. During that time Swift met with Lieutenant Colonel Spicer, his Commanding Officer.(The latter has been in the news recently regarding a curious affair involving mercenaries in Sierra Leone.)
The Pat Finucane Centre is also in possession of a signed affidavit from Lt Col. Spicer from June of this year. In it he admits that within hours of the shooting he believed that both men should be "rearmed, rezero their weapons and in my view should return to the streets."
Given this extraordinary admission it comes as no surprise to realise that he believed his men, whom he spoke to within hours of the shooting, had been questioned and arrested with "indecent haste". In his view "Young men who live and have grown up in Belfast do not play pranks on Army Patrols given the potential for Police and/or Soldiers to open fire on them."
Six years after his death Peter Mc Bride remains a 'terrorist suspect' in the view of the then Commanding Officer and sections of the British media.
The two men convicted of his murder remain members of the British Army. When the Secretary of State does review this case it can only be hoped that no decision is made, in the words of Lt Col. Spicer, with 'indecent haste'.
(The Pat Finucane Centre have lodged a number of complaints with the Press Complaints Commission regarding coverage of the death of Peter Mc Bride.)