Madden & Finucane
Ranked
Number 1
by Chambers,
the clients guide
to the legal profession
Chambers and Partners have been publishing their
world-famous guides to the legal profession since 1990. The key to the success
of their legal directories and the validity of their awards is the in-depth,
unbiased research conducted by their team of highly qualified and experienced
researchers. View more
Madden & Finucane
present
the Madden & Finucane
and Pat Finucane
Aisling Awards
The Aisling Bursaries, launched in March 2000, are
an educational initiative between Belfast Media Group and West Belfast
Partnership. The Aisling Bursaries are designed to help students defray their
education and training costs.
View
more
|
|
Derry families mount legal action against DPP
21 February, 2002 --
The families of nine Derry people killed in disputed circumstances by the
security forces have announced that legal action against the Director of Public
Prosecutions is to go ahead following what they have described as "an insulting
and inadequate response from the office of the DPP". In a letter to the
families, the DPP has again refused to give reasons for his failure to
prosecute, despite the landmark ruling of the European Court last year requiring
him to do so.
The move follows a press conference last month with the families of Desmond
Beattie, Kathleen Thompson, Colm Keenan, Manus Deery, Daniel Hegarty, Thomas
Friel, Denis Heaney, Stephen McConomy and Paul Whitters. The families were
accompanied by solicitors from the firms of McDermott & McGurk and Madden &
Finucane and representatives of the Pat Finucane Centre. The Pat Finucane Centre
announced on Wednesday, 20 February, that solicitors are now to seek leave to
judicially review the DPP in two test cases on behalf of the families of Manus
Deery and Kathleen Thompson.
Paul O'Connor, PFC spokesperson said, "these test cases should be seen in the
context of a series of ongoing legal challenges to the culture of impunity which
has surrounded state killings over the past 30 years. As a result of the
European judgement, legal challenges are presently going ahead regarding the
inquest system and the failure to mount independent investigations. The test
cases in respect of Manus Deery and Kathleen Thompson are groundbreaking in the
sense that the office of the DPP will find itself in the dock, a unique reversal
of roles." McDermott & McGurk have instructed senior counsel on behalf of the
family of Manus Deery. Madden & Finucane have instructed senior counsel on
behalf of the family of Kathleen Thompson.
The relatives have also expressed their total outrage at the nature of the
recent correspondence from the office of the DPP. The letter makes no reference
to those who died by name. Instead each of the deceased has been given a
reference number. Raymond Beattie, whose brother Dessie was shot dead by British
soldiers in July 1971, commented: "To give someone a number, not a name, is
going down the path of the Nazis, who treated Jews as numbers." Maria McConomy,
whose young son Stephen was killed by a British soldier in 1982 was equally
scathing. "It's a disgrace and shows their mentality. To us he was a flesh and
blood human being, an 11-year-old child playing on the street, a son and a
brother, not a number on a file to be ignored."
The Pat Finucane Centre has asked that other families who lost loved ones in
controversial killings study the eight major criticisms that emerged from the
European judgement and ask themselves whether these might apply in their own
cases. "We would encourage families to contact their solicitor first and
foremost or the PFC if in doubt," said O'Connor.
Eight major criticisms emerge from the four judgements. These are:
Lack of independence of the police investigation, which applies to police
killings (Jordan, McKerr), army killings (Kelly), and cases of alleged collusion
(Shanaghan).
The refusal of the DPP to give reasons for failing to prosecute.
Lack of compellability of witnesses suspected of causing death.
Lack of verdicts at the inquest.
Absence of legal aid and non-disclosure of witness statements at the inquest.
Lack of promptness in the inquest proceedings.
The limited scope of the inquest
Lack of prompt or effective investigation of the allegations of collusion.
|
|
more..
|
|
|