Taoiseach Micheál Martin has defended the UK government’s approach to addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s Troubles following calls for the Irish Government not to drop its inter-state case, saying London has “fulfilled their commitments to date”.
Speaking on Thursday, Martin declined to clarify the State’s position on the legal action which it initiated in 2023 over concerns Britain’s now-discredited Legacy Act breached international human rights law.
He was speaking following calls from victims for the Irish Government to continue with its inter-state case in the wake of a UK supreme court ruling on the Legacy Act which upheld an appeal by the British government.
Emphasising the “very strong mutual confidence and trust” between Dublin and the current Labour government in London, he said he wanted to see “continuing progress” on the Troubles Bill to replace the Legacy Act, which is currently making its way through parliament.
READ MORE
The Taoiseach said he was “not going to get into conditionality” but he had “no basis to suggest that the British government will renege on its commitments”.
The Taoiseach said he had not had the “opportunity” to examine the “lengthy” UK supreme court judgment but he would do so “very carefully” and his view was that the current joint framework approach was the “best opportunity in a generation” to address the legacy of the Troubles.
Gavin Booth, of Phoenix Law, representing the Troubles victims who took the legal challenge to the legislation, said the ruling was “disappointing” and flies squarely in the face of the decision of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
“Our clients will now consider taking this matter to the European Court of Human Rights,” he said, adding “they also call on the Irish Government to continue with their inter-state case”.
“The Supreme Court have unfortunately today left victims and families in a state of flux. This decision is likely to lead to more lengthy litigation.”
The inter-state case was also raised during meetings with the North’s political parties at Stormont, with Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald noting her concerns that the UK government would “pander” to veterans.
[ NI legacy Bill to be delayed by amendments to ‘safeguard’ British army veteransOpens in new window ]
“We have been given assurances that there will be absolute vigilance on the part of the Irish Government in that regard, and that the inter-state case remains live,” she said.
Democratice Unionist Part (DUP) leader Gavin Robinson said the inter-state case was a “disgrace” and should be withdrawn immediately.
He repeated his criticism of the Irish Government over its failure to establish a parallel inquiry into the 1998 Omagh bombing, saying it “talks a lot about legacy but has delivered nothing for victims”.
Fresh legislation to address the legacy of the North’s Troubles based on a new, joint approach agreed with Dublin, which will replace the Legacy Act, is currently before the UK parliament but has been delayed due to a “substantial package” of amendments the British government intends to introduce to “safeguard” British army veterans.
On Thursday, the UK’s highest court backed the Northern Secretary in his appeal against previous rulings by the High Court and Court of Appeal in Belfast which found parts of the Legacy Act were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and breached the Windsor Framework by undermining victims’ rights guaranteed by the 1998 Belfast Agreement.
In a unanimous ruling on Thursday, five senior judges allowed the UK government’s appeal, saying, in a summary of the judgment, that “the applicants’ rights derived from EU law have not been diminished”.
They also judged the applicants had been “unable to show” that inquiries by the ICRIR – the investigative body set up by the Act – would breach the ECHR “in all or almost all cases, which is the standard that must be met” and they “cannot establish” the UK government’s veto power would mean it would lack independence or result in ineffective investigations.
Gráinne Teggart, from Amnesty International, said the decision to uphold the UK government’s appeal was a “bitter blow to victims and condemns them to further delays for truth” and the judgment “must not be used by government to give cover to a system that shields wrongdoing rather than exposing it”.
“We call on the UK parliament to stand firmly with victims and ensure the [UK] government’s new Troubles Bill delivers for them. The Bill must end impunity and guarantee effective investigations.”
The Legacy Act, which became law in 2023, was introduced by the previous, Conservative government and was widely opposed, including by victims’ groups and the Irish Government.
It replaced existing methods of criminal and civil investigations and inquests with inquiries carried out by a new investigative body, the ICRIR.
It was challenged in the Belfast courts by a group of victims of the Troubles, including Martina Dillon, whose husband Seamus was shot and killed in Dungannon in 1997, in circumstances suggesting collusion.
The most contentious provision of the legislation, the proposal for a conditional amnesty for perpetrators, was dropped after a High Court judge ruled it breached victims’ human rights.
Despite the process initiated by the current UK government to change the law and “repeal and replace” the Legacy Act, it challenged parts of earlier judgments relating to the application of the Windsor Framework in the UK Supreme Court, telling a hearing last October that the issue was “constitutionally profound.”
A UK government spokesperson welcomed the “clarity provided today by the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that the ICRIR is fully equipped to deliver human rights-compliant investigations, and reaffirms the Government’s position on the interpretation and application of article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
“It is clear that the Troubles Bill is now the only viable way to generate confidence across communities, enable information sharing by the Irish authorities and put in place the necessary safeguards for our former service personnel.”
