Campaigners for the family of murdered Belfast teenager Peter Mc Bride have raised serious misgivings about the appointment of Dr John Reid as the new Secretary of State. The Derry based Pat Finucane Centre (PFC) has published a series of questions which they claim the new SoS must address.
Dr John Reid was Minister of State for the Armed Forces during a crucial period in the campaign to free Scots Guards Mark Wright and James Fisher who were convicted of the 1992 murder of Peter Mc Bride. During this period he and his officials provided false information to campaigners for the Mc Bride family, delayed the decision on the future of the Guardsmen contrary to Queens Regulations, intervened publicly and inappropriately on their behalf while Armed Forces Minister and justified the use of MoD facilities by campaigners for the two convicted murderers. The family of Peter Mc Bride deserves responses to the following questions. It is our view that these raise issues of much greater importance than allegations surrounding a passport application.
On May 13 1998 Dr Reid, then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, met with representatives of the Guardsmen Wright and Fisher Release Group. Two subsequent requests for meetings with the Mc Bride family were refused. His successor as Armed Forces Minister, Doug Henderson MP did finally agree to a meeting following representations from the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. Why did Dr Reid refuse meetings that his successor agreed to?
Following the meeting with the Release Group Dr Reid expressed his "concern" over the continuing imprisonment of the Guardsmen. Was it appropriate for a Minister to express such public support for two convicted murderers given his role as Minister in deciding their future in the Army?
In a letter to the PFC dated May 29 1998 Dr Reid's Military Assistant stated that no decision had been made on the retention of the Guardsmen in the Army because the case has "been under consideration by the Northern Ireland judicial process for some time" and claimed that the two "have either been appealing against the decisions of the court or ( have been..) seeking judicial review of their cases." This information was totally untrue and was known to be so by his officials. Leave to appeal the convictions had been denied two years earlier, in March 1996. Why did he issue false and inaccurate information to justify his own inaction as Minister?
In a letter dated July 23 1998 Dr Reid again endorsed this view stating, "...the Army Authorities have taken the view that it would be inappropriate for the future of the two Guardsmen to be considered until all judicial debate ceased." There had been NO judicial debate on the issue of the guilt or innocence of the two guardsmen since March 1996. As the Minister with ultimate responsibility in this matter he was duty bound to ensure that Queen's Regulations be applied. Why did he delay the decision on the Guardsmen's future contrary to Queens Regulation 9.404 ?
In a letter dated November 30 1997 to a constituent Dr Reid justified the use of Scots Guards HQ property and telephones by the Release Group. He stated, "...the group no longer uses the Wellington Barracks address as their point of contact. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that whilst consideration is being given to their future in the Army, Gdsm Fisher and Wright remain members of the Scots Guards and are entitled to support from their Regiment." Why did the Armed Forces Minister believe that two men who were convicted in a court of law of murder were 'entitled to support from their Regiment' ?
The Minister and his officials repeatedly sought to influence the early release of the Guardsmen and improperly delay a decision on their future. The MoD strategy was to delay an Army Board hearing until the two had been released thus creating circumstances which would allow for their retention. Was it appropriate for the Armed Forces Minister to be involved in a strategy which sought to effectively overturn the judgement of a court of law?
Dr Reid's officials informed the PFC that the Army Board hearing on the future of the Guardsmen was a 'quasi- judicial process'. Two of his successors actually sat on the Army Boards which decided on retention of the Guardsmen. Was it appropriate for the Minister who would be involved in a decision making capacity in a 'quasi-judicial process' to show such clear bias in favour of two convicted murderers?