In September 1992 18 year old Peter McBride was shot dead after running away from a patrol of the Scots Guards, a British Army Regiment on foot patrol in the New Lodge area of Belfast.
Two years later his killers, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, were sentenced to life imprisonment for his murder.
Now a group, led by former British Army officers and aided and abetted by sections of the British media, are campaigning for the release of the two men on the spurious basis that the two have served longer in prison than two other soldiers sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of innocent Irish civilians, Private Ian Thain and Para Lee Clegg.
Peter Mc Bride's family and friends do not have a high profile, well financed campaign led by some of the most powerful people in Britain. They do not have a public relations firm. This is an urgent appeal to support the family at this time. Peter's mother Jean has said the release of the soldiers would mean that "my son's 18 years of existence would be worth nothing". What price an Irish life?
Contact your local papers, radio and public representatives. Campaigners on behalf of the two guardsmen have admitted on Scottish TV that "there has been a reaction from the other side of the Irish sea". Let's make that reaction one that can't be ignored. PS If the paper you read supports the Scots Guards....boycott it!
Fact file..........Fact file..........Fact file..........Fact file.......
At 10.15 am on September 4 1992 Peter Mc Bride, a father of two young daughters, was stopped by a foot patrol of the Scots Guards in Spamount St off the New Lodge Rd. He was wearing jeans, a T shirt and carried a flimsy jacket in his hand along with a bag of crisps and a bun. A radio identity check was carried out though it appears that they already knew his identity. During this time he was subjected to a thorough body search which made clear that he was not armed. It is not known what was said during the period of at least five minutes while he was held. His family have confirmed that he had previously been harassed by patrols. Peter ran from the patrol and turned into Glenrosa |St South. He was chased by a number of soldiers. Three soldiers were chasing him as he turned right from Glenrosa St South into Upper Meadow St. Witnesses heard soldiers shouting "stop or we'll open up" but the soldier in charge ordered them " don't shoot". Seconds later another witness heard the words "shoot the bastard ". Two soldiers, Guardsmen Mark Wright and Jim Fisher, took up firing positions on one knee and fired a number of shots at Peter Mc Bride, hitting him twice in the back from a range of some 70 yards. At the time they opened fire Peter was getting further away from them and thus posed even less of an alleged åthreat'. They knew his name, address and the fact that he was unarmed. Peter, seriously wounded, stumbled through a house before collapsing in the back entry behind his sisters house. A witness told the Irish News (5.9.1992) how "there was a couple of us round him and one man was holding his hand, talking to him about his kids, trying to keep him conscious". He died soon after.
The Aftermath
Within minutes the two soldiers who had shot Peter were taken by the military to Girdwood Army Barracks and the RUC was denied access to the men for at least 10 hours. This gave rise to allegations that the British Army were helping the men prepare a defence. A protest march was held calling for the withdrawal of the British Army from the area. The Minister for Foreign Affairs in Dublin, David Andrews, called for an immediate independent investigation. An editorial in the Irish Times (5.9.1992) said "there is little doubt that he posed no threat to the soldiers who shot him" while an Irish News editorial on the same day, commenting on a possible official investigation said, " One can already visualise the buckets of whitewash being flown in to deal with the present incident". Both Sinn Fein and the RUC agreed that Peter was not a member of any illegal organisation. The day after the killing Guardsmen Wright and Fisher were charged with murder. At Peter's funeral the Bishop of Down and Connor said the killing had "diminished confidence in the rule of law".
The Trial
The trial was held at Belfast crown court before Lord Chief Justice Kelly in the spring of 1994. Fisher was to claim that he opened fire because he believed that Peter Mc Bride was leading the patrol into a trap and would throw a coffee jar bomb at them. Wright, who was yards away from his fellow guardsman when he opened fire, alleged that he believed the dead man had opened fire on them. These perceived threats were coming, according to Wright and Fisher, from a youth who was running away from them. The Mc Bride family had heard nothing of these allegations until shortly before the trial. The court heard that the two had fired five shots between them hitting Peter twice in the back. The other two military witnesses were not called during the trial which the family feels precluded any possibility of finding out what had been said to Peter while he was stopped by the patrol. The two men were branded "untruthful and evasive" by the court. During the proceedings neither expressed any remorse. On the contrary Wright, in his first court appearance, turned to Jean McBride, mother of the victim, åwinked' smiled and gave the åthumbs up'. The family commented, "they stood there like two children caught stealing a packet of sweets". Their arrogant behaviour in court caused great distress to the McBride family and at one stage friends of the accused had to be removed from the building.
In February 1995 the two were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge stated "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". In relation to Wright the judge made it clear that "this was not a panic situation which required split second action or indeed any action at all". A subsequent appeal was dismissed in December 1995 and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was denied in March 1996. Though all legal avenues had now been exhausted the family warned of a åClegg style' campaign to free the two.
The Campaign
In November 1996 the first move was made in an campaign calling for the release of the two. Legal representatives for the two argued in Belfast high court that the decision not to refer their case to the Life Sentence Review Board (LSRB) until late 1998 was "wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the rules of natural justice". A barrister claimed that the two had a "legitimate expectation that in line with government policy they would be released after approximately three to three and a half years in prison". The basis for this extraordinary and spurious claim is the alleged precedent set when two other soldiers were released after serving less than four years of a life sentence. Justice Girvan granted the judicial review and their case will come before the LSRB in the coming weeks.
Dangerous precedents
Private Ian Thain, convicted of the murder of Kidso Reilly, spent only three years and eleven months in jail while Paratrooper Lee Clegg, convicted of the murder of Karen Reilly, spent three years and one month in jail. Both had received life sentences. The release of the two convicted murderers followed a high profile campaign led by establishment figures using the subtext that the soldiers had "only been doing their duty" doing "what they were trained for". The decision by the Life Sentence Review Board to release Clegg in particular led to protests by the US and Irish Governments, the resignation of one of the LSRB members and widespread street protests and riots throughout the North.
"Targeting the mainland media"
In the Scottish TV current affairs programme, Frontline Scotland, screened on March 4, a former Scots Guards officer admitted that their campaign, based on the belief that the "regiment is like a family" was "targeting" the Scottish and English media. Before the programme was broadcast a row had broken out between the programme makers and the public relations firm co-ordinating the campaign, the PR Centre in Edinburgh. Contact with the Northern Irish media had been barred denying BBC Northern Irelandås Spotlight programme access to the guardsmen's families. A BBC Scotland spokesperson was quoted in the Irish News (4.3.1997) "It is absolutely despicable- they are trying to suppress the debate. The PR Centre........are very careful who they target. They don't want any coverage at all in Ireland". The programme itself, though it attempted to give equal airtime to the Mc Bride family, was notable for several significant omissions. It reported that the soldiers had shouted warnings that they would open fire but failed to mention the countermanding order "don't shoot" nor was the call to "shoot the bastard" brought to the notice of Scottish viewers.
Military Precision
The campaigners, co-ordinated with "military precision" according to
BBC
Scotland, travelled on February 10 to Edinburgh Castle to "meet Army top
brass
and political figures". A press conference was held. (Evening Telegraph
10.2.1997) In a letter to newspapers that same day three key issues were
raised:
1) The two had already served longer than Clegg or Thain, therefore
ånatural
justice' meant they should be released.
2) They had been convicted by a non jury Diplock court. (as have
thousands
of
Irish people)
3) They were "only doing their duty".
The letter was signed by Lieutenant General Sir David Scott Barrett and Major General Murray Naylor, HQ, Scots Guards, Wellington Barracks, Birdcage Walk, London. The letter made clear that military property is being used to co-ordinate a campaign against the legal decision of a court of law which would be comparable to a campaign calling for the early release of a convicted paedophile teacher being based at Department of Education property.
Others who have spoken out in favour of the campaign include some 40 MPs who have signed a commons motion led by the Labour MP Tam Dalyell. A debate on the issue in the House of Lords woke many a sleeping stalwart of the British upper class including former Chief of the Defence Staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, former Scots Guard and ex Cabinet Minister Lord Rees, former Scots Guardsmen Lord Westbury and Lord Burnham and former Grenadier Guards officer Major General the Duke Norfolk who stayed awake long enough to note that "we all know the awkwardness of pursuing your soldierly duties in Ulster". (The Herald 28.2.1997)
In the same debate Lord Dean of Harptree felt that 'cold blooded murder' had been committed against the security forces and those responsible 'were not treated the same way'.........? (Daily Mail 28.2.1997)
The PR Centre, who cannot come cheap given their full page ad. in the Edinburgh Yellow Pages, has advised the campaign to publicly stress acceptance of the original verdict and concentrate on the 'four-and-a-half years is enough argument'. In an interview the mother says "we have accepted the judgement of the courts and that our boys must serve a prison sentence". (Courier and Advertiser 11.2.1997. The real thinking behind the campaigners however emerges in interviews. Scott Barrett and Murray Naylor argue that the two "committed an error of judgement" while others on the Regimental Council talked of the men being of "good repute, good Scottish soldiers". The Herald reported that "MPs and peers of both parties have campaigned for them to be released four-and-a-half years after the incident, arguing that they should never have been jailed for carrying out their duties in dangerous conditions". (28.2.1997) Interviewed on BBC Scotland the parents of the two men maintained, "how can they get punished, they were only doing their duty" while the father of Mark Wright felt that "he shouldn't be there (prison) in the first place, he should have been freed that day". Given the logic of this argument it comes as no surprise that, despite the murder convictions, both remain part of the regiment's First Battalion! Mark Wright's mother has been reassured that their son, once released, "won't be going back to Ulster....... it's more likely he will be sent to Germany". (Daily Mail 1.3.1997)
The same report in the Daily Mail makes the totally untruthful claim that "after a two minute chase they claim they saw Mr McBride reaching for a plastic bag inside his jacket. They wrongly believed it contained a bomb". In fact Wright claimed that he believed the deceased had fired at them while Fisher's coffee jar bomb claim was completely dismissed by the judge but the Mail didn't let accuracy get in the way of a good story.
All equal before the law?
Nineteen British soldiers have been charged with murder since the conflict began. Only four were ever found guilty of murder which carries a mandatory life sentence. Two of them, Thain and Clegg, were released after less than four years. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been murdered by soldiers during that period. Thousands have served much longer sentences for lesser offences. Some in the legal establishment have argued that a lesser charge of manslaughter should be available and would have led to more convictions since judges are unwilling to convict members of the security forces of murder given that a life sentence is mandatory. This has also been argued in the Peter Mc Bride case. The victim's family believe that this is a flawed argument. After chasing a man whom they knew to be unarmed for some distance, having been ordered not to shoot, the two Guardsmen took careful aim and shot him in the back using SA-80 assault rifles. The only possible intent was to "shoot the bastard" as one of them shouted seconds beforehand. The judge made clear that the two did not in actual fact believe themselves to be under threat. It was murder.
The decision on whether or not to recommend release of the two men is nominally in the hands of the Life Sentence Review Board who are expected to make a decision in the next weeks. The Board, chaired by the Permanent Under Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, is clearly a political animal as was demonstrated in the Clegg case. Should they decide to recommend release the final decision is then in the hands of Patrick Mayhew. In a commons reply the government has promised that "the cases of the two guardsmen will be considered as expeditiously as possible". The two most appropriate points of pressure for those who support the Mc Bride family are therefore the Secretary of State, Patrick Mayhew, and the Tanaiste, Dick Spring, in Dublin.
This fact sheet was prepared by the Pat Finucane Centre at the request of and in close collaboration with the family of Peter Mc Bride.