Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre

4 SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
hands of loyalist paramilitaries. A letter dated 11 January 1991 was sent to
the RUC by Patrick Shanaghan’s solicitors who requested, as a matter of
urgency in order to assess the risk to his life, information relating to the
documentation, including the type of information lost, dates when the
information was first recorded, the exact date and under what circumstances
it went missing, copies of photographs and addresses included in the files,
and information in relation to the social movement and employment of
persons involved in handling the files. On 29 July 1994, over three and a
half years later, the RUC responded to this letter by stating that the police
investigation was concluded and that the document had been accidentally
lost by the Army.
On 27 April 1991, Sergeant Norden of the RUC called at
Mr Shanaghan’s home and informed him that he had received information
to suggest that he was being targeted by loyalists.
19. The Government gave further details about the loss of the
photographs. They stated that on 10 December 1990 during the journey of
an army patrol vehicle from Rockwood Base to Hump Vehicle Checkpoint
near Strabane in County Tyrone, the rear doors of the vehicle fell open and
a helmet, armoured vest and combat suit belonging to one of the drivers fell
from the vehicle. The jacket of the combat suit contained three terrorist
recognition photographic montages comprising a total of 38 photographs,
including some of Patrick Shanaghan. Upon arrival, it was discovered that
the said equipment was missing and a search carried out of the route, which
resulted in the recovery of the helmet. The officer responsible for the
missing equipment was cautioned and interviewed by the Special
Investigation Branch about the loss of the photographic montages. He was
subsequently reported and disciplinary proceedings instituted against him.
The officer attended a disciplinary interview with his Brigade Commander.
No formal disciplinary sanction was recorded as imposed, although the
Government stated that it was possible that he received a formal rebuke
which would not have been recorded. The RUC informed Patrick
Shanaghan promptly of the loss of the photographs. There was no evidence
who, if anyone, recovered the photographs or that they played any later role
in events.
20. Patrick Shanaghan was stopped and questioned by RUC and UDR
officers on a daily basis. The Shanaghan family home, which the applicant
shared with her son, was searched sixteen times between 1985 and 1991. No
illegal material was ever found. According to the applicant, sometimes the
RUC would not even enter certain rooms indicating that the search was not
a concerted effort to locate and seize illegal material but was carried out
solely to harass the family.