Previous Page  89 / 294 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 89 / 294 Next Page
Page Background

UNREPORTED IRISH CASES

F

Former Prisoner gets £300 in Test Case for

Ill-Treatment

A Northern Ireland judge ruled that men were detained

in "primitive circumstances", which were "deliberate,

unlawful and harsh", following their arrests by security

forces during the big internment scoop on August 9th

last year.

Judge Rory Conaghan was giving his reserved judg-

ment at Lurgan County Court in a civil action brought

by a former detainee, William John Moore, of Bleary,

Portadown, against Mr. Graham Shillington, Chief

Constable of the R.U.C., and the British Ministry of

Defence for alleged wrongful arrest and assault.

Mr. Moore was awarded the total damages he had

claimed, £300, which is the highest amount a County

Court judge can award. The hearing of the action, at

Armagh County Court in January lasted seven days.

Mr. Moore was released from the prison ship Maidstone

after 13 days' detention.

In his lengthy judgment which took 47 minutes to

deliver, Judge Conaghan said three British Army

witnesses had lied in their evidence about how the

physical exercises which detainees were forced to under-

go had started. He referred to "a deafening silence"

from the R.U.C. and the higher ranks of the army

about what went on in the detention huts at Bally-

kinlar army camp. Authority for the rigid discipline and

regimentation at both places must have come from top-

ranking officers.

Judge Conaghan also suggested that an. Army doctor

"shut his eyes" to what was happening to the detainees

and said that a military police officer in charge of 89

detainees "abandoned responsibility" for them to his

N.C.O.s.

Test case—plaintiff absent for fear of arrest

The action is regarded as a test case and it is likely

that similar actions may be initiated by other detainees

and internees.

When the action was heard in Armagh, Mr. Moore,

who is married and has two children, did not attend.

He has been living in the South for several months

and did not come to the hearing because the police

and army refused to give an undertaking that if he did

come North he would not be arrested. At a preliminary

hearing the defendants' counsel informed the judge that

the security forces wanted to interview Mr. Moore and

that if he came within the jurisdiction he would be

arrested for interrogation.

Judge Conaghan said that the points at issue were—

was the plaintiff unlawfully arrested in. the early hours

of August 9th, and was he treated afterwards in such

a manner as to give rise to an action for assault,

trespass to or battery of his person against the defen-

dants or either of them by reasons of the acts of their

servants and agents in the course of their employment?

After considering the evidence of arrest, and the

authorisation for it, he held that the original arrest was

wrongful and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Mr. Moore should have been informed, at least, that

he was being detained for interrogation for a period of

48 hours and if he was going to be charged with an

offence, then he should have been told with what

offeree he was going to be charged. Thus the family

would have known what situation he had to meet and

they would have known what to tell a solicitor.

It was a pure technicality which should never have

occurred, but one upon which the plaintiff could rely,

the judge said.

At the start of his outline of what happened after

Mr. Moore's arrest, Judge Conaghan said there was one

contradiction which remained unexplained. It was

agreed that ten soldiers in three vehicles came to the

plaintiff's home. However, Mr. Moore said the army

burst open the lock on his front door at 4 a.m., came

into his home and arrested him. The military version

was that the plaintiff had opened the door for them

some time after 4.30 a.m. in response to their knocking.

"The dispute matters little in the final analysis, but

the curious circumstance is that, although the arrest

report records the arrest as 04.35 hours, the records

at Ballykinlar show it is 4 a.m.", Judge Conaghan said.

Ill-treatment at Lurgan and Ballykinlar

There was undisputed evidence from both sides as

to what happened in the converted factory at Pine-

hurst, near Lurgan, where Moore said others were first

taken. Each person arrested had to sit on a chair facing

a wall and the rule was—no talking, looking around,

smoking or sleeping. "A soldier stationed behind each

man enforced the rule, and where necessary nudged or

poked the arrested with a truncheon or struck the chair

to secure compliance. Nobody was allowed to nod."

At the Ballykinlar holding centre, where the men

were taken at about 10 a.m. on August 9th, they were

put into reception huts some of which were denuded of

all furnishings, racks, presses and stools, and the same

strict rules were applied as at Pinehurst. "The doors of

the huts were dirty, and nails and screws had been left

on the floor at points where they had fallen, if indeed

any were removed." Custody of the 89 arrested men

was entrusted to Lieutenant Ian Roger Barton of the

Royal Military Police, with the assistance of Sergeant

Smith and Sergeant Love and their separate platoons,

each of about 15 men.

Judge Conaghan said the M.P.s admitted that

exercises, or as they preferred to call them, "changes of

position" went on in the huts, yet Superintendent MagiU

of the R.U.C. said that he saw none and heard no

commands being given. He did not appear to have had

much contact with the huts, the Judge said.

The exercise went on until midnight on August 9th

and were resumed in some fashion at about 3 a.m. and

continued on Tuesday except in the hut reserved for

people who were to be released.

Judge Conaghan quoted the Compton Report as say-

ing : "compulsory exercises must have caused hardship

to some, at least, of those who were made to do them,

especially those in poor physical condition, and we have

noticed as a particular,, hardship that some men were

woken up to do them in order to secure uniformity of

action in the hut."

Judge Conaghan commented : "The evidence before

me also warrants such a finding."

Particulars of brutality inflicted

Moore and his witnesses had given evidence that

88