The Pat Finucane Centre works on the premise that the creation of a policing service acceptable to both traditions is itself dependent on the creation of political institutions acceptable to all. The problem of policing cannot be resolved in isolation or in advance of a political settlement. The premature introduction of a police bill in Parliament by this Government is therefore totally inappropriate and prempts agreement on policing.
In addition policing cannot be detached as an issue from the general administration of justice. There are serious concerns, both in the nationalist and in the human rights community, at the system of justice as presently constituted. A radical overhaul of the entire judicial and legal framework is needed. Issues such as emergency legislation, the inquest system, the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates,bail applications, access of arrested persons to solicitors and the removal of the right to silence must be addressed. The judiciary does not represent the generality of the population and is in fact dominated by a group of public school educated men. The judiciary have encouraged the growth of a culture of impunity in which members of the security forces could routinely break the law and violate human rights.
The widest possible debate will be necessary if democratic institutions are to be created. It is essential that such debate be fostered by a body which enjoys the confidence of a substantial number from both communities.
We would therefore propose the establishment of an :
International Commission on the Administration of Justice.
A five member commission should include nominees from the British and Irish Governments, the European Union and an internationally recognised human rights organisation such as Amnesty International. The key role of chairing such a body should be held by a figure of international standing in the area of law and/or conflict resolution.
There have been a number of important precedents recently for 'internationalising' the search for resolution of aspects of the conflict. The talks process is chaired by former US congressman George Mitchell while the decommissioning body is chaired by the Canadian General John de Chastelain. This international involvement is explicit recognition of the fact that certain key areas of conflict can only be resolved with outside intervention. Policing and the administration of justice is clearly such an issue. The commission, we would propose, could adopt the model of the Opsahl Commission and set aside a six month period when the widest possible consultations could be held. Accessibility to the commission would build credibility. This would therefore involve a proactive involvement with local communities.
The central remit of the commission should be policing and the administration of justice. This would allow for a more focused debate on the various proposals that have been put up for discussion such as two tiered policing. Such a body however could also deal with the vexed question of how to deal with past human rights violations by the state. Though all sides have violated human rights in the conflict the security forces have enjoyed de facto immunity from prosecution. We have no ready blueprint on how to deal with this emotive issue but submit that the families of victims of state violence should be consulted on their opinion.
A commission should also look at the question of how existing alternative justice structures could be democratised and made accountable. One avenue would be the encouragement of community mediation centres as an alternative to more formalised justice structures such as courts. It has been our view for some time that many disputes at neighbourhood level are best addressed using the expertise and skills available at grass roots. Difficult though it may be to admit at official level there is widespread acceptance in nationalist areas that certain issues are best dealt with locally. The inference is not that physical violence is then used or threatened merely that respected community leaders from the area already possess certain mediative skills. This should be encouraged and developed as is now common practice in other countries.
The debate on how to resolve the problems associated with policing understandably stirs up fears in the unionist community and within the RUC itself. In a recent statement for instance Les Rogers of the Police Federation referred to those who criticised the RUC as "drop-outs, young people going through a rebellious phase, criminals and terrorists." We believe that the debate is too narrowly focused on what appears to be a lose/win option. Unionists fear the loss of their RUC while nationalists demand radical and far reaching changes in policing. On the surface one community appears to seek gains at the expence of the other. There are valuable lessons to be learnt from the South African experience on how the debate could be conducted. There the policing discussion was refocused on the issue of how to achieve personal safety for all of South Africa's citizens. To refocus in this way presumes an acknowledgement that an organisation (ie the South African Police or the RUC) has different meanings for different communities. Drawing from this we have argued and accepted for our part that the RUC is seen as providing safety and security to the majority of people in the unionist community. (though there are notable exceptions in working class loyalist areas). Equally the same organisation, providers of safety and security in one community, causes acute insecurity and threatens safety in another. Nationalist experience of the RUC is literally a million miles from unionist experience of the same force. It therefore follows that calls for a new police service fall on deaf unionist ears since there are no common points of reference. Progress may be possible however should the debate refocus on that aspect of policing that does mirror unionist experience. How can that sense of safety and security experienced by the majority of unionists in relation to the RUC be extended to both communities? How can a policing service be created that protects the personal safety of all citizens? To attain that goal is clearly moving the debate onto the level of a win/win situation. Both communities would gain from the establishment of an acceptable police service whose role it was to protect human rights, provide for personal safety and serve the citizen.
The implication of our submission is that mere tinkering with the RUC will fail to resolve the problem and will in fact sow the seeds of future conflict. Catholics have not joined the RUC because the RUC is organically linked to unionism and the unionist community. The real question is how to create a police service that is also open to nationalists and republicans.
Much of the debate on policing has focused on the ethos of the RUC which by definition reflects the official state ethos which is British. The constitutional changes which are required in the political arena would logically extend to policing. Forty five percent of the population are nationalist. It therefore follows that an acceptable police service would echo the diversity of the wider population. When the official state ethos changes the ethos of the institutions of state will logically follow. The issue of ethos would eventually become irrelevant in a situation where nationalists/republicans felt welcome to join a new police service. Symbolic changes such as the rewording of the oath taken by RUC officers does nothing to alter the fundamental chasm that exists between nationalists and the RUC. Put bluntly the oath taken by an officer is of no consequence to a resident of the Garvaghy Road who has just been brutally assaulted in by that officer in order to force through an Orange parade.
The inclusion of a representative from the Belfast based Committee on the Administration of Justice for instance would increase the credibility of any new body. Civilian oversight of complaints is vital. A new investigative body should be empowered to look at complaint patterns in addition to dealing with individual complaints. This has certain benefits both in identifying possible sectarian or sexist behaviour in particular units and in making recommendations to management on how such patterns could be avoided in the future. A transparent process would enhance credibility. Those making complaints should be kept regularly informed of the process and more importantly the outcome of their complaint.
A final comment on the recruitment of Catholics. We have argued that nationalists will not join the RUC. This is understandable given the role of the RUC within the unionist community. In the unlikely event that Catholic (as opposed to nationalist) recruitment should increase dramatically it should be remembered that such a gradualist or reformist approach would take literally generations to filter through to middle and senior management. Nationalists deserve a policing service to which they can owe allegiance at the beginning of the millennium not towards the middle of the 21st century as would be the case given current recruitment trends.
A number of important policing issues remain in the transitional period with the potential to threaten the peace process.
We would urge the introduction of international monitors to join existing RUC patrols. Monitors, possibly drawn from Scandinavian police services, would have discretionary powers to join RUC mobile and foot patrols at a time and place of their choosing. This, in our view, would help defuse tensions in the interim and provide for impartial accounts of possible controversial incidents. Mechanisms could be established to allow for monitors to report back to a sub-group of the International Commission.
END
Footnote
We are available to make a verbal submission to the Select Commission and
clarify any points if required.