A High Court judge in Belfast ruled today in favour of the family of murdered Derry woman Kathleen Thompson, finding that no effective investigation was held into her murder. Kathleen Thompson was shot dead by British soldiers in the Creggan Estate in Derry in the early hours of November 6 1971. The Thompson family approached the PFC three years ago to ask for support in their search for the truth. It soon emerged that no proper investigation was ever carried out by the RUC and, to make matters worse, the PSNI then claimed that the investigation file had disappeared. Hours before a TV documentary was screened last year the PSNI claimed that a file did in fact exist.
The PFC accompanied the family to a meeting at PSNI HQ in Derry when promises were made that the file would be disclosed to the family. At that meeting the PSNI refused to disclose the file as promised and the Thompson family walked out in disgust. As late as February 18 of this year the Minister for Victims, Des Browne MP, claimed in correspondence that a full police investigation had been carried out.
Solicitors acting on behalf of the family lodged a judicial review in the High Court claiming that the Secretary of State was under an obligation to carry out an Article 2 investigation as required by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. Today's judgement will have major implications for many cases where British soldiers and RUC officers were responsible for murders. Speaking on local radio at lunchtime, Minty Thompson, daughter of the murdered woman, said she "was overjoyed at the ruling." Though it is expected that the Secretary of State will appeal the judgement campaigners believe today's events mark a turning point for victims of state violence. Below is a PFC fact file on the background to the Kathleen Thompson case, together with a number of recent press releases regarding developments in the case.
During the early hours of November 6 1971 200 members of the Royal Green Jackets, a regiment of the British Army, moved into Creggan to search a house in Rathlin Drive, with instructions to arrest any males there. As they were leaving the area, empty handed, a soldier opened fire, shooting dead Kathleen Thompson, a 47-year-old mother of six children who was standing in her back garden at 129 Rathlin Drive. She was killed instantly by a single shot in the chest. The woman whose house had just been searched later said that she had heard an officer telling the soldiers to "get ready to shoot when you get outside" as they were leaving her house.
The army claimed that two shots were fired at them, and that they had replied with eight shots, one of which killed Kathleen Thompson. Civilian witnesses claim that no shots were fired at the army. Patrick Thompson, Kathleen's husband, said: "There was no exchange of shots at the time, and the only people in the street were soldiers who were shooting CS gas."
A statement released at the time by the Creggan and Foyle Hill Tenants Association read:
"Their [British army] answer has been to change their policy; they have replaced harassment with intimidation and murder. In order to carry out their murderous raid on this area they sneaked in across the fields and smashed in the door of a tenant's house.
"By this time the people in the immediate vicinity had become aware of the army's presence and came to their doors to see what was going on. They were met by a barrage of filthy language and threats by armed soldiers...Knowing that its presence was now discovered the army decided to withdraw but not before leaving its mark.
"A young mother, Mrs Kathleen Thompson, was unfortunate enough to be standing in her garden at this time. The soldiers passed this garden on their way out and one of them gave vent to his frustration by shooting her in the back."
Four 'alphabet soldiers' - A, B, C and D - gave statements about the death of Kathleen Thompson.
Soldier A, a squad leader, said that he saw what appeared to be a "dustbin lid and a piece of wood appear from over the fence of 129 Rathlin Drive" before soldier D opened fire.
Soldier A makes no reference to any shots being fired at the soldiers other than hearing a bang, or to seeing anything resembling a gun or a gunman in the garden where Kathleen Thompson was shot.
Soldier B, a platoon commander, said that he had heard of the incident immediately afterwards, but again no reference is made to any civilian gunmen, or gunfire directed at the army.
Soldier C, who was a member of A's section, claims to have seen up to four people in the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive, including a man holding "what appeared to be a .22 rifle" and one female. He said he took aim at the gunman, but then heard two shots and saw the gunman "slump towards the fence." He said that he was about 10 yds away at the time, with a clear sight of the gunman, whom he described as "heavily built and about 6 ft tall wearing dark clothing." He also claims to have seen "some kind of bomb" thrown from his right.
Soldier D, who killed Kathleen Thompson, claimed that as he was running down Southway he heard a single shot, possibly from a .22. "The shot appeared to come from the rear of 129 Rathlin Drive which I was opposite. I turned around and saw a flickering light and the figure of a person behind the fence of 129 Rathlin Drive. I also heard some voices coming from the area to the rear of 129 Rathlin Drive. An object was thrown in my direction. I did not see where it landed or what it was.
"I then took aim with my SLR at the figure behind the fence and fired 2 x 7.62 rounds. I could not confirm a hit, but the figure disappeared as soon as I had fired which could indicate that I did hit it. The distance between myself and the figure was about 20 yards."
Soldier D then fired a further three shots at an alleged bomber on his right, about 130 yards away, and a further three shots at a point from where he claimed another object was thrown.
This accounts for all eight shots claimed by the army. Out of 200 soldiers who were allegedly fired upon, only one soldier returned fire.
Soldier A, D's squad leader, ordered him to cease firing. Soldier C also refers to the order to D to cease firing.
A number of questions arise from the soldiers statements:
Soldiers A, C and D were in the same section and were moving together down Southway when the shots were fired. How then can the three give very clear, but totally different accounts, of what they could see in the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive? Photographs of the scene show that the soldiers could not possibly have had the view into the garden that they claimed to have had.
The autopsy report shows that the bullet that killed Kathleen Thompson came from above and to the left. Soldier D claimed that he was running "down Southway towards Letterkenny Road" when he fired the fatal shot. This is not possible. If the shot was fired from Southway, as soldier D claimed, then the bullet would have been travelling upwards when it hit Kathleen Thompson.
The section comprised of eight soldiers. Why were statements only taken from three members of this section, Soldiers A, C and D? Soldier B was not at the actual location of the shooting.
Soldiers C and D refer to bombers on high ground to their right. Soldier A refers to another company of soldiers in the same position at the same time. How could there be bombers in the same position as the soldiers, and why were statements not taken from any of these soldiers?
All four statements were taken by the same investigator - JR Mills - a Corporal in the Army Special Investigation Branch - at exactly half hour intervals - Soldier A, 03:30 hrs, Soldier D 04:00 hrs, Soldier C 04:30 hrs and Soldier B 05:00 hrs. These were the only statements taken and this then amounts to a two-hour investigation of a fatal incident in which these soldiers were involved. Can this in any way be considered an adequate investigation?
Why was there no evidence of any RUC involvement in the questioning of the soldiers? The RUC are duty-bound to fully investigate such events, but in this case obviously did not. The evidence of RUC involvement only relates to procedural matters, i.e. identification of the body, photographing of the scene (10 months later). These 'procedural matters' related only to the preparation of materials for the Inquest and not to a police investigation into her death. There is, as yet, no evidence of any such investigation, despite claims by the RUC that one was carried out. It must be emphasised that the preparation of documents for an Inquest does not fulfil the legal requirement on the RUC to carry out a police investigation.
The evidence of civilian witnesses differs substantially from that of the soldiers. None of the civilian witnesses make any reference to any shots being fired, or bombs being thrown at the soldiers. All say that the only 'bangs' that night came from British army rifles and CS gas canisters being fired. One witness, Daniel Houston, said: "I am definite that no shots were fired from our direction at the soldiers."
None of the civilian witnesses refer to anyone other than Kathleen Thompson being in the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive at the time she was killed.
Mr Thompson also described the layout of his back garden, claiming that due to the height of the fence it would have been impossible for anyone, including the soldiers who claimed to have seen a gunman in the back garden, to have seen over the fence into the garden, unless they stood on something to see over the fence.
If the soldiers were moving down Southway, a very steep hill, as they claimed they were at the time of the shooting, the gradient of the hill would have further exaggerated the height of the fence, making it impossible for any of the soldiers to have seen into the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive.
On November 2 1972 the inquest into the death of Kathleen Thompson delivered an open verdict. Mr Thompson was denied the opportunity to give evidence at the inquest. Despite the open verdict the DPP failed to then order any further enquiries into the circumstances of the death. This was in clear contravention of domestic and international guidelines governing the responsibilities of prosecuting authorities.
In a letter dated May 1 2001 the RUC confirmed that "no police investigation file in respect of the incident resulting in Mrs Thompson's death can be found." The letter went on to state that enquiries to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Solicitor had also failed to locate a file. No official document relating to the shooting death of a mother of six exists other than the Inquest documents.
In further correspondence from the RUC dated October 10 2001 the family were informed that a further search had failed to locate an investigation file. The letter claimed that an investigation had taken place but no evidence was offered to support this claim.
It is important to point out that an official with the office of the DPP informed the Pat Finucane Centre that the RUC did not routinely carry out investigations into deaths attributed to the security forces during the period leading up to the establishment of the office of the DPP in the spring of 1972.
According to this official the archive of the DPP contains a letter from the incoming DPP instructing the RUC Chief Constable to carry out police investigations into all conflict related deaths. The PFC is of the opinion that no police investigation was ever carried out into the death of Kathleen Thompson and has now requested firm evidence of the nature of the alleged investigation from the RUC. To date the shocking fact remains that the official response to the death of Kathleen Thompson was an internal army investigation which lasted a total of two hours. The RUC did not attempt, on the available evidence, to take any statements from military or civilian witnesses. The family have confirmed that an RUC Detective removed vital forensic evidence, a bullet embedded in the wall of the house, from the scene on the night. Nothing more was heard of this evidence and the RUC have never approached the family in relation to any investigation.
This failure to investigate is in direct contravention of domestic and international law. Earlier this year the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK Government had violated Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights through its failure to conduct proper independent enquiries into specific conflict related deaths. As a result the Thompson family wrote to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) "to request what measures are now being undertaken to comply with these judgements..." On November 1 a reply was received stating that the DPP had sought the advice of Senior Counsel and a further reply would be issued within 14 days. By November 13, in other words, the Thompson family will know how the state intends to respond to their long and painful search for the truth.
To date the response has only served to rub salt into the wound. In a letter dated March 26 2001 the Compensation Agency informed the family that compensation of £84.07, (eighty four pounds and seven pence) was paid to the family in June 1980. Mr Thompson, husband of the victim, tore up the cheque.
Press Release ...For Immediate Release, September 02
The family of murdered Derry woman Kathleen Thompson have appealed to the newly appointed Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, to intervene in the ongoing mystery over the existence of an investigation file into her death. The move comes following months of "frustration and prevarication" according to Minty Thompson, daughter of the victim. For over a year the family were told that "no investigation file in respect of the incident resulting in Mrs Thompson's death can be found."
Then, earlier this year and just hours before a television programme titled The Thompson File was due to be screened, the PSNI dramatically announced that a file had been found. The family learnt of this new development while watching the programme. Neither they, their solicitors or the Pat Finucane Centre who had been writing on their behalf were officially informed that a file had been found until after some time the programme had been shown.
Despite subsequent correspondence from the PSNI promising the family access to the investigation file no access has been granted. The PSNI informed the family on May 28 that the Regional Assistant Chief Constable "is happy to arrange a meeting with a member of the family to acquaint them with details of the investigation." On June 18 there were told that they would "contacted in due course." On July 28 the issue of access to the file was "receiving attention" according to the assistant Chief Constable.
According to Minty Thompson, "The programme was broadcast six months ago. Our family have grown increasingly sceptical as to whether an actual file does in fact exist. There is a suspicion that the PSNI sought to minimise the negative publicity caused by the programme by claiming the existence of an investigation file where none in fact exists. The family are therefore appealing directly to the Chief Constable to clear this matter up as soon as possible. If a file exists we are demanding that the contents be made available to the family without further delay. We were promised it six months ago."
A spokesperson for the PFC added, "recent events would vindicate our view that no actual investigation was ever carried out. Where there was no investigation there is no investigation file. As recently as July we accompanied the family of Annette Mc Gavigan to Strand Rd Barracks where we were assured that the family would have access to documents related to the investigation. As it turned out the PSNI were unable to produce a single document emanating from the RUC relating to the death of a 14 year old schoolgirl shot by the British Army in September 1971. There is therefore justified suspicion that no investigation was ever carried out into the death of Kathleen Thompson less than two months later, in November 1971. Its put-up or shut-up time. If a file exists then it should be produced without delay."
Press Release, 25/10/02
Members of the family of Kathleen Thompson, the Derry mother-of-six shot dead in the back garden of her home by a British soldier in November 1971, went to Strand Road PSNI barracks in Derry today to view the RUC investigation file into her death.
After a prolonged attempt to see the file, during which the family were told by the RUC that no file could be found, only for the file to appear just hours before a television program on the question of its existence was broadcast and then apparently disappear again, the Thompson family were promised last week that they would be given full access to the file at 11.00 am today.
When the family arrived, all they were shown was a collection of statements taken from the Inquest papers. The PSNI officers present claimed that other papers existed, but were 'not available' to the family today. The Thompson family walked out of the barracks without being given, or even shown, anything to prove that police investigation into their mother's death was ever carried out.
Speaking afterwards, Mary Louise Thompson said:
"We walked into Strand Rd expecting to get access to the RUC investigation file into the murder of our mother. We didn't. We walked in expecting, like other families, to get copies of documents that they said they were making available to us. We didn't. We expected to be able to see what documentation the RUC held on file. We were denied access. We were told the information was "confidential". We were shown no shred of evidence of there ever having been any RUC investigation into the murder of our mother, and yet the PSNI were adamant that there had been. We are now more convinced than ever that there was no proper investigation.
"The PSNI's attitude was an insult to us and to the memory of our mother. Their attitude today is no different from the RUC's thirty-one years ago."
It has already been revealed that, in direct contradiction of international human rights law, it was accepted practice at the time for the RUC not to investigate killings by the army, but to leave this to other soldiers. The existence of a "gentleman's agreement" to this effect has already emerged at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry in a statement from a British army officer:
"Back in 1970 a decision was reached between the GOC and the Chief Constable whereby RMP (Royal Military Police) would tend to military witnesses and the RUC to civilian witnesses in the investigation of offences and incidents. With both RMP and RUC sympathetic to the soldier, who after all was doing an incredibly difficult job, he was highly unlikely to make a statement incriminating himself...It was equally unlikely that RUC would prefer charges against soldiers except in the most extreme circumstances."
Further evidence of exactly how the army 'investigated' itself will be given to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry this coming Monday. In his statement a soldier known only as INQ 2052, who was a member of the army Special investigation branch in Derry in 1972, will describe such an investigation:
"I interviewed the soldier wherever his unit was located...It was not a very formal procedure. I always wore civilian clothing and the soldier was usually relaxed. We usually discussed the incident over sandwiches and tea...We did not check weapons or indeed ask any questions about weapons if our investigations concerned a soldier firing his weapon. Nor did we ask any questions regarding the yellow card. It was not our role to ascertain whether the soldier was justified in firing or whether his behaviour was lawful or unlawful; our role was merely to record the facts of the incident."
Paul O'Connor of the PFC who accompanied the family said, "This type of investigation, carried out "over sandwiches and tea", was never going to lead to the prosecution of any soldier for the murder of a civilian. That was the intention. In the case of Kathleen Thompson we know the army 'investigation' lasted just two hours. We have the timed and dated statements to prove it. This is obviously not acceptable, and her family will now settle for nothing less than a full, impartial and completely transparent investigation into her death. We are calling on the UK Government to finally institute its own policy of Glasnost, open up the files and end the culture of secrecy."
Press Release, 5/11/02
It is now 31 years to the day (Wednesday 6/11/02) since Derry mother-of-six Kathleen Thompson was shot dead in the back garden of her own home by a British soldier, and her family claim that they know no more about her death now than they did on the day she was killed.
Following the most recent denial by the PSNI of access to the RUC investigation file which they claim to hold, the Thompson family remain more convinced than ever that the only 'investigation' ever carried out into their mother's death was the four statements taken from soldiers in the hours after their mother's death. This means that the only investigation into her death was an internal army investigation, carried out by other soldiers, which lasted just two hours.
It has already been revealed that, in direct contradiction of domestic and international law, it was accepted practice at the time for the RUC not to investigate killings by the army, but to leave this to other soldiers. The existence of a "gentleman's agreement" to this effect has already emerged at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry in a statement from a British officer. That same officer, known only as Inq 3, gave evidence to the Inquiry on Monday, and revealed even more about the nature of these internal army investigations. During cross-examination by a QC for the Bloody Sunday families it was revealed that:
This new evidence provides further confirmation that between July 1970 and March 1972, British soldiers, who killed Kathleen Thompson and 66 others, enjoyed complete immunity from prosecution. With the RUC completely abrogating their legal obligation to investigate all suspicious deaths, and an army 'investigation' totally weighted in the soldier's favour, there was no possibility that any soldier would ever be prosecuted. The British army killed 67 civilians between July 1970 and March 1972. Not one soldier was convicted. .
Speaking after this latest evidence emerged, Minty Thompson said:
"It's thirty one years now since my mother was killed, and we are still being kept in the dark. The PSNI are still refusing us access to their supposed investigation files, just like the RUC did for the previous thirty years, and everything we hear now about how army investigations were carried out at the time shows they were nothing more than a formality, with no prosecutions intended or expected.
"Our pain is the same as that of every other family who have lost a loved one, so why are we being treated differently? Why were we denied the right to a proper investigation into our mother's death? We do not accept this, and will never accept it. We demand now, on the anniversary of our mother's death, that it be properly investigated and that we, her family, be finally told why our mother was killed, and why nothing was done about it."