Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre
Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre
Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
8 SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT<br />
38. On 30 November 1998, <strong>the</strong> ICPC wrote to <strong>the</strong> applicant’s daughter<br />
to inform her that Constable D. would be spoken to about <strong>the</strong> error which he<br />
had made as to <strong>the</strong> time at which he was detailed to <strong>the</strong> scene but that no<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r disciplinary proceedings would be taken in respect of <strong>the</strong> matters<br />
complained of on 26 June 1997. <strong>The</strong>y stated that <strong>the</strong>y were satisfied with<br />
<strong>the</strong> action taken.<br />
39. In January 1999, having considered <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> RUC’s fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
enquiries in <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong> unofficial enquiry, <strong>the</strong> DPP decided that <strong>the</strong>re<br />
should be no prosecution in relation to <strong>the</strong> shooting.<br />
E. Unofficial inquiry<br />
40. A community inquiry into <strong>the</strong> circumstances surrounding <strong>the</strong> murder<br />
was organised by family and friends after <strong>the</strong> conclusion of <strong>the</strong> inquest in<br />
<strong>the</strong> hope that <strong>the</strong> whole truth about <strong>the</strong> murder could be revealed. <strong>The</strong><br />
inquiry, conducted by <strong>the</strong> Castlederg-Aghyaran Justice Group and chaired<br />
by a retired <strong>United</strong> States Judge, Andrew Somers, heard thirteen witnesses<br />
over <strong>the</strong> period from 17 to 19 September 1996. <strong>The</strong> witnesses included<br />
family, local residents and friends of <strong>the</strong> deceased. Evidence was given<br />
alleging that police officers had frequently stopped <strong><strong>Pat</strong>rick</strong> <strong>Shanaghan</strong> in <strong>the</strong><br />
street and issued threats, that <strong>the</strong> police warned people to keep away from<br />
him or <strong>the</strong>y would end up being shot, that police officers made comments to<br />
persons in custody before <strong>the</strong> incident that <strong><strong>Pat</strong>rick</strong> <strong>Shanaghan</strong> would be<br />
targeted and, after <strong>the</strong> incident, claimed that <strong>the</strong>y had had him killed. Two<br />
witnesses claimed that <strong>the</strong>y had seen <strong><strong>Pat</strong>rick</strong> <strong>Shanaghan</strong> still moving after<br />
<strong>the</strong> shooting had occurred. <strong>The</strong> Judge concluded that <strong>the</strong> applicant had been<br />
murdered by <strong>the</strong> British Government and, more specifically, with <strong>the</strong><br />
collusion of <strong>the</strong> RUC.<br />
F. Civil proceedings<br />
41. On 22 July 1994, <strong>the</strong> applicant issued a writ against <strong>the</strong> Chief<br />
Constable of <strong>the</strong> RUC and, by amendment of 15 September 1994, against<br />
<strong>the</strong> Ministry of Defence also. <strong>The</strong> writ was served on 17 July 1995. In <strong>the</strong><br />
proceedings, <strong>the</strong> applicant claimed damages for loss and damage sustained<br />
by her and <strong>the</strong> estate of her son by reason, inter alia, of negligence, breach<br />
of confidence and misfeasance in public office relating to <strong>the</strong> storing,<br />
handling and use of information.<br />
On 19 July 1995, <strong>the</strong> defendants gave notice of intention to defend <strong>the</strong><br />
proceedings. No fur<strong>the</strong>r steps have been taken.