Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 4th June 2008, day 29

Click here to download the LiveNote version
















held at:
The Interpoint Centre
20-24 York Street
Belfast BT15 1AQ

on Wednesday, 4th June 2008
commencing at 9.15 am

Day 29








1 Wednesday, 4th June 2008

2 (9.15 am)

3 MS JANE WINTER (continued)

4 Questions by MR PHILLIPS (continued)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips?

6 MR PHILLIPS: I would like to ask you, please, about the

7 Congressional Subcommittee meeting on

8 29th September 1998. You deal with this in your

9 statement from paragraph 66, which is at RNI-824-041

10 (displayed).

11 Can you remember, please, how it was that you and

12 indeed Rosemary Nelson came to attend this hearing?

13 A. Yes. Congressman Chris Smith, who had taken a long-term

14 interest in human rights issues around the world but

15 also particularly in Northern Ireland, was in the habit

16 of holding congressional hearings on human rights issues

17 in Northern Ireland. And I believe I am right in saying

18 that he had actually visited Northern Ireland some time

19 earlier in 1998 and met a number of lawyers, and we had

20 raised -- when I say we, I mean Paul Mageean of CAJ and

21 I had raised with him this whole issue of intimidation

22 and he was very well aware of the Patrick Finucane case

23 and the campaign there to try to achieve a public

24 inquiry. And he decided to devote one of his hearings

25 to this issue, and Paul Mageean and I were asked whether




1 any lawyers in Northern Ireland would be prepared to

2 testify and I persuaded two lawyers to do so, one of

3 whom was Rosemary Nelson.

4 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 67 there were

5 other obvious candidates, I think those with similar

6 experiences, you mean:

7 "But we knew that they would never be prepared to

8 attend, whereas she, Rosemary Nelson, would be."

9 A. I think that's right. Since Param Cumaraswamy's visit,

10 I think she had, whether consciously or not, decided

11 that she would take a high profile and this was another

12 opportunity to raise the issue and I believe she felt

13 that she would help other lawyers who were suffering

14 similar abuse.

15 Q. Can I take it from that sentence and the way you put it

16 that you didn't ask others, you simply went to

17 Rosemary Nelson and asked her to, because you knew she

18 would be willing?

19 A. I didn't know that she would be willing, I hoped that

20 she would be, but Paul Mageean and I discussed a number

21 of potential candidates and in the end decided to

22 approach the two whom we did approach with the idea that

23 if either of them said no, we would then go to others on

24 our list. But they were the people who we thought were

25 most persuadable.




1 Q. Can I ask you: how was the whole thing financed?

2 A. I believe everybody paid their own expenses. I think I

3 am right in saying that with a congressional committee,

4 they will only pay your expenses once you have hit

5 American soil, and the bureaucracy is such that it is

6 hardly worth the bother of claiming the taxi fares. So

7 I believe that everybody paid their own expenses.

8 Q. Did you discuss the idea of the hearing with her before

9 you set out?

10 A. Oh, certainly, we explained the whole process to her and

11 what would be involved and what she would be expected

12 to do.

13 Q. And on the basis of that, what do you think she hoped to

14 achieve as a result of appearing at the committee?

15 A. I think she thought that it would galvanise American

16 opinion, make people more aware of the difficulties that

17 lawyers in Northern Ireland faced. The other lawyer who

18 spoke, who I don't know whether I am allowed to name or

19 not --

20 Q. I'm afraid not, because of our system.

21 A. Right. But he spoke about the murder of

22 Patrick Finucane, and Rosemary Nelson herself had spoken

23 out in support of a public inquiry into

24 Patrick Finucane's case, and I believe she felt that her

25 presence would help publicise his case as well and was




1 another way of showing her support for him.

2 So it wasn't an entirely self-referring decision on

3 her part. I think she felt it would be a helpful thing

4 for her to do, not just for herself but for others as

5 well.

6 Q. In relation to the hearings, as I understand it, the

7 format was that the individuals gave their statements

8 and there was the other lawyer, Rosemary Nelson and, in

9 fact, Paul Mageean?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. So --

12 A. And I believe there was a speaker from Human Rights

13 First as well.

14 Q. Thank you. But you were in attendance at the hearing?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. And I believe also that Mr Cumaraswamy was present?

17 A. Yes, and he also spoke in a separate session.

18 Q. In a question and answer session?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. Yes, thank you. That, as I understand it, followed the

21 delivery of the various statements; is that right?

22 A. To the best of my recollection I believe he spoke first.

23 But I'm sure he can confirm for you which way round it

24 was, but I am pretty certain because of his status and

25 his independence it made sense for him to be the first




1 person.

2 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, we discussed the question of

3 Rosemary Nelson's security and protection and the

4 conversation you had with her, for example, about the

5 scheme and what it would require from the police,

6 et cetera?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. This was a topic that came up, didn't it, in the

9 question and answer session at the end of the

10 statements?

11 A. It did, yes.

12 Q. Can I ask you to look, please, at the relevant passage.

13 It is at RNI-113-059 (displayed).

14 At the at the bottom of the left-hand column, after

15 the sentence "Sir, I thank you for yielding ..." the

16 chairman asks a question and says specifically:

17 "Have you, Rosemary Nelson, made any requests for

18 security protection?

19 "Answer: No, I didn't make any specific request for

20 security, but the RUC was notified about these threats.

21 They've continued to be notified. In fact, I have

22 continued as recently as July of this year. I had

23 a similar threat. That complaint was made known to the

24 RUC as well, but the question of security just hasn't

25 been raised.




1 "Question: Wouldn't it be appropriate for you under

2 these circumstances to make such a request for security

3 since your life has been threatened?

4 "Answer: Possibly, but to be perfectly honest, I am

5 not sure I would use a firearm. I mean, I have taken

6 certain precautions around the home."

7 You were present during these exchanges, I think?

8 A. I was, yes.

9 Q. The attitude, which is set out there, Rosemary Nelson's

10 attitude, was consistent, wasn't it, with the

11 discussions that you had had with her?

12 A. They were, although it was news to me that she had in

13 fact taken some precautions at home.

14 Q. That was my second question. Again, based on what you

15 said yesterday, you, as I understood it, hadn't at this

16 point had any information from her that she had taken

17 certain precautions around her house?

18 A. No, she had never mentioned it to me.

19 Q. And certainly when you had been there, you hadn't seen

20 any precautions at all?

21 A. No, but that was of course some time before this.

22 Q. Yes. The discussion continues, if we can go back to the

23 full page, please, and look at the next question and

24 answer. The Chairman says:

25 "But I am talking about the UN provision that we




1 discussed where the Government has responsibility for

2 your security if your life has been threatened."

3 Then we see her answer at the top of the page:

4 "Yes, indeed, the Government does have

5 responsibility. The procedure there is if you request

6 security from the RUC, your hour or your premises are

7 assessed by the RUC for these security installations,

8 and I wouldn't have any great faith in the RUC coming in

9 to assess that."

10 Again, as I understood your evidence yesterday, that

11 was very much the position that she adopted in your own

12 conversations about this?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can I highlight for you again a point specifically at

15 the bottom of the left-hand column. Do you see her

16 answer there:

17 "I am not sure I would use a firearm"?

18 But that again picks up the sort of approach that

19 you outlined to us yesterday, doesn't it?

20 A. It does. I mean, she said to me that she could not

21 imagine herself using a gun and that she hated guns.

22 Q. Thank you. Can I move on to another topic.

23 In your statement from paragraph 98 at

24 page RNI-824-052 (displayed), you refer to a report

25 which you drafted and which was published




1 in December 1999, after Rosemary Nelson's murder. Do

2 you see that reference there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. One of the topics you covered was the question of

5 raising Rosemary Nelson's safety with the NIO in the

6 context of the Garvaghy Road Coalition. Do you see that

7 is your second sentence?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. As I understand it from your statement, you had no

10 direct involvement with these issues at the time?

11 A. No, that's right.

12 Q. And so can I take it that what you did after her murder

13 was to gather such information as you could -- and you

14 describe how you went about that in your statement -- in

15 order to compile this report?

16 A. That's right, and I believe it was Padraigin Drinan who

17 alerted me. She was the solicitor acting for

18 Breandan Mac Cionnaith. I believe it was she who

19 alerted me to the fact that there had been discussion at

20 the proximity talks, as they were known, in relation to

21 the Garvaghy Road situation.

22 Q. So you think -- and this is indeed what you say in

23 paragraph 98 -- that it was that other solicitor who

24 first alerted you to this issue?

25 A. Yes.




1 Q. Is that right? Looking, if we may, briefly at the text,

2 and it begins at RNI-306-167 (displayed) --

3 A. Is this my 1999 report?

4 Q. It is.

5 A. Because, as you, I hope, are aware, I have submitted to

6 the Inquiry, or resubmitted to the Inquiry, what I said

7 in my submissions to the Inquiry in 1994, which is

8 a more accurate record than this 1999 report.

9 Q. Thank you. Can I just pick up the limited number of

10 points in relation to this report?

11 A. So long as I can refer to my own submission of 1994 if

12 I feel the need, yes.

13 Q. Thank you. It begins --

14 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: 2004, I take it?

15 A. I beg your pardon, 2004, yes.

16 MR PHILLIPS: It begins at RNI-306-167 and the section

17 I wanted to draw your attention to is at 3.4 on

18 RNI-306-173 (displayed). And it is the first sentence:

19 "Rosemary Nelson did allow ..."

20 Do you see that sentence?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can I take it that the information upon which that

23 statement is based came from the other solicitor?

24 A. She did say to me that she thought that had happened but

25 she herself was not at the meeting, and I in fact spoke




1 to Breandan Mac Cionnaith himself to get his account of

2 the meeting and I was concerned by some of the things

3 that he said in that I believed that he was seeing the

4 meeting through a particular prism. And although

5 I believed he was telling me what he believed to be an

6 accurate account of the meeting, I wasn't convinced that

7 it was entirely accurate.

8 But he told me that Stephen Pittam from the

9 Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust had been at the

10 meeting, who is somebody that I know very well. So

11 I phoned him to get his version of events, which was, as

12 I anticipated, rather more objective than

13 Breandan Mac Cionnaith's who was, I believe, very fond

14 of Rosemary Nelson and very personally upset by her

15 murder, and I think he was looking at the meeting very

16 much with the benefit of hindsight.

17 Q. And you set that process out actually in your statement

18 at paragraphs 98 and 99, which takes us to RNI-824-053.

19 If we can just look at those (displayed).

20 You deal with Mr Mac Cionnaith's feelings about the

21 matter and then later with the amendments he made and

22 your decision, in fact, not to use that version but to

23 rely, I assume from what you have said, on the

24 information given to you by Mr Pittam?

25 A. Indeed, and also by documents which




1 Breandan Mac Cionnaith did supply to me through

2 Padraigin Drinan concerning meetings that they had had

3 with Jonathan Powell.

4 Q. If we can go back, please, to RNI-306-173 (displayed),

5 so far as this application which you refer to there is

6 concerned, based on the discussions we had yesterday and

7 indeed we have just had, that would have been a

8 surprising thing for Rosemary Nelson to have done,

9 wouldn't it?

10 A. I'm not sure. As I said before, no was not a word that

11 was really in Rosemary's vocabulary in the same way that

12 she allowed the Lawyers Alliance for Justice in Ireland

13 to make a complaint to the ICPC even though she thought

14 it was probably a waste of time.

15 I think that her clients, who were the Garvaghy Road

16 Residents Coalition, were concerned about her safety.

17 They knew that she had received threats and abuse and I

18 think she may not have appreciated fully -- she wasn't

19 at this meeting herself -- that really the only

20 protection on offer was the Key Persons Protection

21 Scheme. But I think she was happy enough for them to

22 raise her safety at the same time as raising her own,

23 which I believe was the main focus of that meeting.

24 Q. But we know, don't we, that as at late September 1998

25 she told the Congressional Subcommittee that she had not




1 applied for protection and that question had not been

2 raised?

3 A. Certainly by her, no, but I think she probably felt that

4 nothing would come of any mention of her safety at this

5 meeting between the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition

6 and others, and so she could see no harm in them going

7 ahead because she thought it would probably go nowhere.

8 Q. That is a rather different point, isn't it? That would

9 have led to a rather different answer to the

10 congressional subcommittee: namely, I have made an

11 application but I don't expect anything to come of it?

12 A. No application was ever made, in fact.

13 Q. So the sentence saying she did allow them to do so, you

14 are not saying, are you, that such an application was

15 made?

16 A. No.

17 Q. No. Thank you.

18 So far as that meeting and indeed the other meetings

19 you refer to in 3.5 and 3.6 are concerned, you were not

20 present at the meetings?

21 A. No, that's right.

22 Q. And presumably you would accept that the Inquiry must go

23 on the evidence of those who were?

24 A. Of course.

25 Q. Thank you.




1 A. Could I just add one thing, though that I think was

2 clearly true in relation to the meeting, and I am sure

3 you will be putting this to other relevant witnesses,

4 but as I understand it, not only was no application made

5 but it was made clear that there was no point in

6 anybody, other than the two locally-elected councillors

7 involved in the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition,

8 making an application.

9 They were told that they had no prospect of success,

10 which in Rosemary's case, I think, had she been looked

11 at individually and separately from her clients, might

12 have been looked at rather differently, but I don't

13 believe it ever was looked at.

14 Q. Was that based on something you have seen?

15 A. It is based on discussions that I have had since with

16 Mr McCusker, who was the Northern Ireland Office

17 official who was present at the meeting.

18 Q. So you would expect that to be something that he will

19 have told the Inquiry?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. Can I just go back briefly to the question of security

22 precautions and the answer that Rosemary Nelson gave to

23 the Subcommittee. We had a discussion about it.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. After the hearing was over, did you discuss that with




1 her?

2 A. The precautions that she made at home?

3 Q. Yes, that she had mentioned.

4 A. No. I didn't. She was clearly vague in her references

5 for the obvious reason that she didn't want to alert

6 anybody to what they were and I didn't feel any need to

7 know myself what they were. I was just rather glad to

8 hear that she had at least made some effort to protect

9 herself and her family.

10 Q. Can I move on to another topic, which is the evidence

11 you give about death threats of one kind or another.

12 Can you look, please, at RNI-115-249 (displayed).

13 This is a note that you made after the murder, as we

14 can see. It is a discussion with a witness to the

15 Inquiry called Jeremy Hardy. It is a very short note.

16 Can you now recall any more details of the conversation

17 you had on that occasion with Jeremy Hardy?

18 A. No, I can recall the occasion because Jeremy Hardy came

19 to my office, and Jeremy Hardy was a member for the

20 campaign for the inquiry into the Robert Hamill case,

21 and it was that that -- that was the main topic of our

22 discussion. And almost as an aside, he made this

23 mention that during the proximity talks, which he must

24 have been involved in in some way but I don't actually

25 know in what capacity he was there -- it may not have




1 been that he was involved in the talks, but he was

2 around either in Northern Ireland or in London when

3 talks were taking place -- but it was that that

4 pinpointed it to July 1998. And he told me that

5 Rosemary Nelson had shown him a bullet that she had been

6 sent through the post, which is unfortunately a rather

7 common way of delivering threats, or was in

8 Northern Ireland. And I just felt that I should keep

9 a note of it. But as I say, it wasn't really the main

10 topic of our conversation.

11 Q. It seems unlikely on the face of it, doesn't it, that

12 Jeremy Hardy was himself involved in the proximity

13 talks --

14 A. Yes, I do think it unlikely, but I think what my note

15 meant was it was around that time and he must have been

16 with Rosemary in some capacity or other but I don't know

17 what it was. He may well have been talking to her about

18 Robert Hamill, I think, at that point.

19 Q. And can I ask you to turn over to the next page, which

20 is RNI-115-250 (displayed), because you return to this

21 point in paragraph 3.

22 This is an undated note of yours. Can you help just

23 by reading it to estimate at least when it may have been

24 written by you?

25 A. I can't be entirely certain. I remember asking the




1 Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin to ask, through

2 the Anglo-Irish Secretariat, questions about the threat

3 assessment which had been carried out on Rosemary Nelson

4 before she died and which the first I heard of it was at

5 a press conference after her death given by Mo Mowlam in

6 Washington where I happened to be at the same time. And

7 I was not at all convinced that this threat assessment

8 amounted to anything very much and I asked them to try

9 to get more information about when it was carried out.

10 So the first point there was the response to that

11 and I believe that the rest -- the other two points were

12 also discussions that I was having -- I believe the

13 first point was a discussion I had with Eamonn McKee of

14 the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I believe the

15 other two points must have come up in the same

16 conversation.

17 I'm afraid I omitted, when making notes -- this

18 would have been a telephone conversation -- to write the

19 date down, so I was unable to put the date on it and I

20 can't now remember what the date was.

21 Q. Can we at least agree that it must have been after

22 14th December that year, 1999, because that is when you

23 recorded Jeremy Hardy passing on the information about

24 the bullet?

25 A. Indeed.




1 Q. So some time after that?

2 A. It must have been in -- possibly in 2000.

3 Q. And again, looking at paragraph 3, the word you use

4 there is "bullets" plural, "during proximity talks"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Eamonn McKee was, as I understand it, telling you that

7 during the proximity talks he was shown bullets, plural,

8 by Rosemary Nelson?

9 A. Yes, that is what he told me.

10 Q. And again, can you recall any further detail of what he

11 told you?

12 A. Well, as I said in my note, he was later asked questions

13 about that by Colin Port who was conducting the police

14 investigation into Rosemary's murder, and he,

15 Eamonn McKee, had done military service at some point in

16 his career and he thought that they looked like Army

17 issue bullets to him and he told that to Colin Port, but

18 that is the most that he told me.

19 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you to look, please, at

20 paragraph 60 of your statement, RNI-824-039 (displayed).

21 Here, you deal with a visit by Rosemary Nelson to

22 London in July 1998 and the fact that during her visit

23 she showed you a copy of a death threat?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you quote the words there and you say that you took




1 a photocopy of both the letter and the envelope?

2 A. I did, yes.

3 Q. Can I ask you to look, please, at RNI-115-351

4 (displayed). Is that what she showed you?

5 A. It is.

6 Q. Can you remember what her attitude to this threat note

7 was as expressed to you?

8 A. It was almost resignation, really. As I say, she came

9 into the office. She had been to a meeting to discuss

10 the Robert Hamill case with counsel and she -- we were

11 intending to have lunch together and she came into my

12 office, and it was as if she wanted to get this out of

13 the way before we talked about other matters. And so

14 she said, "I suppose I had better show you this," in

15 a rather kind of depressed kind of way.

16 I immediately, said, "May I take a copy of this?"

17 and I scrutinised the envelope. It doesn't show up at

18 all well in this copy but it was clear that the postmark

19 was 3rd June, and I asked her if she had any idea who it

20 had come from, and she said, "None whatsoever". We

21 discussed the fact that it had a Belfast postmark, but

22 that didn't necessarily mean that whoever wrote it was

23 from Belfast and we couldn't really glean very much from

24 it in terms of what its provenance might be.

25 Q. Did she indicate what she intended to do in relation to




1 this threat?

2 A. No, she didn't.

3 Q. You say in your statement, paragraph 62 on the next

4 page, RNI-824-040 (displayed), that having showed you

5 the note she didn't discuss it any further?

6 A. That's right. We went to lunch and we discussed the

7 Robert Hamill case which she was at that time

8 involved in.

9 Q. And you didn't raise the topic with her yourself?

10 A. No, having gleaned as much as one could, there was

11 obviously no evidence that it came, for example, from

12 a police officer. So making a complaint to the RUC was

13 not an appropriate thing to do and I don't think that

14 Rosemary had sufficient confidence in the police to do

15 what any other person might do receiving a letter like

16 this, which is immediately report it to the police. I

17 think she felt that was a waste of time. She just

18 didn't know what to do with it.

19 Q. But to be clear, that is not based on something she said

20 to you when she visited you in July 1998?

21 A. No, it isn't, but I think by then we had reached an

22 understanding that she didn't have any faith in the

23 police, and so in a sense it was a discussion that

24 didn't need to be had.

25 Q. And indeed, it would have been a surprise, based on




1 that, if she had reported it to the police?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. In your statement, later on at paragraph 73, you

4 describe another threat letter and this time in the

5 context of a policing conference in Belfast on

6 24th February 1999. This is at RNI-824-043 (displayed),

7 the bottom of the page.

8 At the very last sentence of the page and reading

9 over to the next page, you say:

10 "It wasn't the same one."

11 The one we have just been looking at on the screen.

12 And if we could read over, please, to RNI-824-044, to

13 the top of the page (displayed). This one you didn't

14 get a copy of, unfortunately?

15 A. I never even saw it because I was due to have lunch with

16 Rosemary Nelson and my colleagues from

17 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Julia Hall

18 and Halya Gowan, but Padraigin Drinan ambushed me with

19 a family who wanted to talk to me. And this was the end

20 of my lunch and I was told by Halya Gowan about it

21 afterwards, so I never saw it myself.

22 But I asked her to describe it to me and it was

23 clear -- I'm afraid I don't now remember which way round

24 it was, but I believe one of the threat letters was on

25 white paper in a white envelope and the other was on the




1 kind of bluey-grey paper. But I did understand from

2 Colin Port that he did eventually find the second

3 letter, so he may be able to help you more with that

4 than I can.

5 Q. Thank you. Can I just ask you to look on this same

6 topic at RNI-115-251 (displayed). It is a document

7 prepared by you, as I understand it, certainly by your

8 organisation?

9 A. Yes, it was compiled by me.

10 Q. And we can see the date at RNI-115-254 (displayed),

11 6th December 1999.

12 Can I ask you first of all, what was the purpose for

13 which this document was prepared?

14 A. It was prepared for two purposes. It was prepared by me

15 following Rosemary Nelson's murder. I asked every NGO

16 who had had contact with her, including groups like the

17 Lawyers Alliance for Justice in America, but also CAJ,

18 Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and anybody I could think of

19 who was likely to have had contact with Rosemary, to let

20 me have whatever material they had in relation to those

21 threats, partly to try to assess the extent of the

22 threats, because it became apparent to me that each of

23 us had part of the picture but not the whole picture,

24 but primarily to give to Colin Port to try to assist him

25 to his investigation. And in fact, I hand delivered




1 this report, this very brief analysis with all the

2 supporting documentation, to Colin Port on

3 10th December 1999 at Aldergrove airport in

4 Northern Ireland.

5 Q. Can we look, please, at RNI-115-2355 (displayed). There

6 is a chronology which begins on this page. Was this

7 a chronology appended to the December 1999 document and

8 subsequently updated by you?

9 A. It was certainly appended to that analysis and

10 accompanied the documents so that -- and I placed all

11 the documents in chronological order so that Colin Port

12 could get the chronological picture. I may have amended

13 it or updated it later, but I don't actually recall

14 doing so.

15 Q. Can you look at RNI-115-271 (displayed).

16 A. Oh, yes, I obviously did receive some

17 additional material.

18 Q. For example, it includes the last entry there -- is one

19 that came after the date you had handed it over?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The aspect of it I would like to ask you about is at

22 RNI-115-253 (displayed). It is only one of the entries,

23 four paragraphs from the bottom of the page, over the

24 weekend. Do you see that paragraph?

25 A. Yes.




1 Q. Can I just ask you: what was the source of that

2 information?

3 A. Dara O'Hagan herself.

4 Q. Are you able to assist us with any further information

5 about those two death threats?

6 A. I am just trying to recall the circumstances. I know

7 that it was a telephone call to me from Dara O'Hagan and

8 she was referring a Loyalist client to my organisation

9 who had come to her, unusually as a Sinn Fein

10 councillor, for assistance.

11 So the bulk of the discussion was about that. And I

12 don't know quite how it was that I had heard that she

13 had been with Rosemary Nelson over the weekend just

14 prior to her murder, but I asked her if that was true

15 and she said it was and that Rosemary Nelson had told

16 her that there had been two telephone death threats to

17 her office in the previous week.

18 But I didn't ask her at the time for any more

19 detail. I presumed that Colin Port would go and

20 interview all of the people who had given me information

21 since he was in charge of the investigation, but I felt

22 I should include it.

23 Q. Those are the circumstances in which this information

24 came to you, but as I understand it, you can't assist

25 with any more detail about the threats themselves?




1 A. I am not sure myself that Dara O'Hagan could remember

2 very much about it. I think it was rather like the

3 letter that Rosemary showed me; it was a "by the way,

4 there were another couple of threats in the last week".

5 But it seemed to me that since they were apparently

6 delivered in the week prior to her murder, they might

7 very well be significant. There might be telephone

8 records, for example, that Colin Port could look at

9 which I wouldn't have access to.

10 Q. No. Thank you. The final topic is at RNI-115-272

11 (displayed). This is a letter to you from a journalist,

12 I think?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Again, considerably after the murder. And she sent you

15 the transcript of an interview she had conducted with

16 Rosemary Nelson on 2nd March 1998. We can see the date

17 on the next page, at the top, RNI-115-273 (displayed).

18 The passage I wanted to show you is on RNI-115-276

19 (displayed). It is under the heading "Talk about fear":

20 "One night there was a car beside mine and the

21 headlights went on suddenly and there were two men in

22 the car. I thought 'This is it'."

23 That, I should say, is the answer to the

24 journalist's question.

25 Was this incident something you ever heard about




1 from Rosemary Nelson herself?

2 A. No.

3 Q. No. So in that sense it falls into the same category,

4 does it, as the "Man Without a Future" pamphlet?

5 A. Yes, it does.

6 Q. Thank you. If we go back to the full page, please,

7 RNI-115-276 (displayed), there is one other aspect of it

8 I want to show you.

9 In the middle of the page there is a section about

10 complaints, and if we enlarge it there, please -- thank

11 you -- do you see the comment that in the hundreds of

12 complaints, no disciplinary action has taken place. Do

13 you see that question and answer?

14 A. Yes, those would be complaints on behalf of Rosemary's

15 clients.

16 Q. Indeed. And then there is a paragraph beginning:

17 "It is like being ..."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. "... up against a brick wall, and as a result people

21 don't lodge complaints, solicitors don't lodge

22 complaints. The only reason I put a complaint down was

23 because I was coming under pressure from these human

24 rights bodies to try this to see if it does work. It

25 didn't let me down."




1 Obviously, you weren't present in this interview?

2 A. No.

3 Q. How do you interpret the comment that the only reason

4 she put a complaint down was because she was coming

5 under pressure?

6 A. I think she was emphasising that she really didn't think

7 there was any point in doing it. I hope she didn't feel

8 pressurised. We certainly never attempted to pressurise

9 her into doing anything.

10 We did advise her to do things and we did -- when

11 she said, yes, I will do it and then didn't do it, we

12 did chase her up and say, "Where is it?" but not in

13 a nagging kind of a way; just as a reminder that she had

14 said she would do something about it, any particular

15 complaint.

16 Q. And you didn't think that the human rights bodies, the

17 NGOs, had effectively pushed her forward?

18 A. Certainly my organisation didn't do anything of the

19 kind. We never would. And as I made very clear in the

20 letter that I wrote to her and the discussion I had with

21 her, when she first raised these issues with us, the

22 first option I gave her was doing nothing: stop doing

23 this work and the problem will go away. That was also

24 the last thing I said to her at that meeting.

25 I felt that only she could make these decisions. It




1 was her life, not mine, that was being disrupted in this

2 way.

3 Q. So the higher profile, which she undoubtedly did attain,

4 was very much of her making, as you see it?

5 A. I believe so, and I am not even sure how conscious

6 a process it was for Rosemary. I think it was just her

7 natural inclination when faced with a problem to try and

8 do something about it. And I am not sure that she

9 ever -- she certainly never said to me, "I have decided

10 to take a higher profile," and I am not sure whether she

11 ever really said that to herself. I think she just

12 found herself doing it. And inevitably some of her

13 cases, like the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition, put

14 her into a very public spotlight whether she liked it

15 or not.

16 Q. Do you think that what happened in this regard owed

17 anything to her ability or inability, as you put it

18 earlier, to say no to people?

19 A. I think there is a difference between people -- if

20 somebody asked Rosemary a favour or somebody offered to

21 do something on Rosemary's behalf, she was the kind of

22 woman who would simply have felt it was rude and

23 discourteous to say no to them.

24 We never said "Rosemary, do us a favour, put in

25 a complaint" to her and I don't believe any of the other




1 human rights groups did either. We advised her and

2 said, "We think that you should put this on record,"

3 especially after Param Cumaraswamy's visit and his

4 advice to lawyers that they should do so, and I think --

5 I am not sure, I haven't actually looked at the

6 chronology of it, but I suspect that she made more

7 complaints after his visit than she ever did before,

8 because of that advice. And we were also trying to

9 follow his advice in advising not just Rosemary but

10 other lawyers as well to put those complaints on record.

11 But we were not putting it to her as doing a favour

12 for us, and it was -- I think we established yesterday

13 that she only ever took about half of the advice that

14 I suggested if she was going to take a high profile.

15 I think she was her own woman and she made her own

16 decisions about what she would and wouldn't do in that

17 regard, and certainly we never would have dreamed of

18 putting her or any other lawyer under pressure, because

19 it was such a sensitive and difficult situation for any

20 lawyer to find themselves in. And every lawyer that we

21 met approached it slightly differently, and we respected

22 that and respected their right to take whichever option

23 seemed the right one for them and to deal with it in

24 whatever way was best for them.

25 Q. Can we move to the final topic, which is the comments




1 that you make in your statement from paragraph 86, which

2 is at RNI-824-047 (displayed), about the murder

3 investigation.

4 I just want to pick up a couple of things on this.

5 The first is that you plainly have never conducted

6 a murder investigation yourself?

7 A. I am not ever in a position to conduct a murder

8 investigation. I do not have the powers or the

9 resources.

10 Q. No, and nor do you have the expertise to comment upon

11 the conduct of a murder investigation?

12 A. Well, I think that may have been true then. I don't

13 think that is necessarily true now, because I have

14 actually been involved in a number of unsolved murders

15 in Northern Ireland where I have had to conduct a great

16 deal of investigation myself and have had to monitor

17 police investigations. And indeed, at the same time as

18 after Rosemary's death when I thought what can I do now

19 that she has died which might be in any way helpful, in

20 the same way that I put together as much information as

21 I could about the threats, I also monitored to the best

22 of my ability Colin Port's investigation and was greatly

23 assisted by Colin Port because he was amenable to

24 meeting with NGOs, unlike any police officer I had ever

25 encountered before in my work.




1 Q. On that point, as I understand it, in terms of your

2 actual involvement with the investigation, that was in

3 fact initiated by him?

4 A. It was, yes.

5 Q. And the contact you had with him was unprecedented in

6 your experience, wasn't it?

7 A. It was.

8 Q. You had, I think, from your evidence, a number of

9 meetings with him?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. In which he provided you and I think others with details

12 of the progress of the investigation?

13 A. Yes. I don't think he ever gave us the full picture,

14 but he gave us enough information to help us when

15 information came to us, which it inevitably did, to

16 assess whether or not it was worth passing that

17 information on to him. And we did pass quite a lot of

18 information to him in an effort to assist him in his

19 investigation.

20 Q. So far as those meetings are concerned, am I right to

21 assume that you would have made notes of your meetings?

22 A. Yes, it depended on who was present. I certainly took

23 notes for some of the meetings, but on other occasions

24 one of my colleagues from another human rights group

25 would do so. But what we would always do was circulate




1 the notes to one another to check that they were

2 accurate and that we hadn't forgotten something or got

3 something wrong.

4 So there would be an agreed version, whoever had

5 taken the minutes, as it were.

6 Q. And so far as those notes are concerned, certainly your

7 notes, they haven't been exhibited to your statement but

8 you have, have you, supplied them to the Inquiry?

9 A. I have supplied everybody's notes, including notes taken

10 by the family at meetings where no NGO was present in

11 the hopes that it would assist this inquiry.

12 Q. Thank you. Sir, those are all the questions I wish to

13 ask.

14 Ms Winter, I say to all the witnesses, or at least

15 I try to remember to say to all the witnesses, that if

16 there is any other matter that you would like to raise

17 with the Inquiry panel, please do so now.

18 A. Thank you. I would like, if I may, to make a very short

19 statement which I have prepared, as the Inquiry will be

20 aware, without the benefit of legal advice or

21 representation.

22 I, like many other witness who have appeared and who

23 will be appearing before this Inquiry, have an advantage

24 that of necessity the Inquiry does not enjoy. I knew

25 Rosemary Nelson. She was a warm, generous, fun-loving




1 and above all intelligent woman. She was also a woman

2 of great personal courage. She loved justice and she

3 hated injustice. She was quite simply -- and this was

4 no mean feat for someone who lived in such a troubled

5 place and in such troubled times -- a person who knew

6 the difference between right and wrong.

7 Those who imagine that Rosemary was engaged in

8 a campaign to discredit the RUC and that she manipulated

9 people of good faith, such as myself and many others of

10 greater standing than me, into supporting her alleged

11 crusade are deluding themselves and they cannot have

12 known Rosemary Nelson.

13 The sad truth is that the boot was on the other

14 foot. Rosemary Nelson was the victim of a callous

15 campaign of denegration which culminated in her brutal

16 and vicious murder. I hope that this inquiry will not

17 get bogged down in the minutiae of who said what to whom

18 or who wrote what to whom, but will keep the shocking

19 facts of Rosemary Nelson's life and death at the

20 forefront of your deliberations.

21 Thank you very much.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Winter, we are very grateful for you

23 coming here to give evidence and we are particularly

24 grateful for you agreeing to give evidence to us this

25 morning at, I know, a degree of personal cost. Thank




1 you very much indeed.

2 MR DORAN: Sir, I wonder if I might make three brief points

3 arising from the witness's evidence.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: If you have any points to raise, will you put

5 them in writing. We will consider them later in the day

6 and we will give our decision on these points later

7 today.

8 MR DORAN: They are matters of relevance not only to this

9 witness's evidence, but also to other witness's evidence

10 and I can give the Panel a very brief resume now if the

11 Panel would --

12 THE CHAIRMAN: We prefer to have them in writing. Will you

13 put them in writing and we will consider them during the

14 day and later in the day.

15 MR DORAN: Very well, sir.

16 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, may I interrupt with two short points?


18 MR PHILLIPS: Because I understand from the Murder

19 Investigation Team's lawyers that they may wish to

20 pursue further questions with Ms Winter. So before you

21 release her, it may be that it would be beneficial for

22 me to have a short discussion.

23 The other point I wanted to raise before somebody

24 else raises it is in relation to disclosure and the

25 various documents that Ms Winter and I have discussed in




1 the questioning.


3 MR PHILLIPS: That is a matter that I have already asked

4 enquiries to be made about, and as soon as we can find

5 answers, and with, I know, help which we will receive

6 from Ms Winter, we will provide any further material

7 that we have or that she provides to us.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

9 MR DORAN: Sir, can I say that Mr Phillips has mentioned one

10 of the three matters with which I was going to deal, and

11 if I may say so, it may well be that on the basis of

12 that further material, we would wish to apply to the

13 Panel to have the witness recalled in order to deal with

14 further matters arising from that material.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr Aiken?

16 MR AIKEN: My Lord, I appreciate you are hearing from me

17 twice in one week, which is maybe not desirous, but

18 my Lord, there are two issues, one Mr Phillips has

19 touched on in relation to disclosure although the issue

20 he has mentioned is not the issue that occurred to me

21 during evidence that was being given this morning.

22 Before I raise that with you, I would like the

23 opportunity to speak to Mr Phillips about it.

24 The second issue is in relation to some matters in

25 relation to questions that Mr Phillips may wish to




1 consider putting. So I join myself with the MIT team in

2 that regard.

3 So rather than this witness being released at the

4 moment or having us do it in writing, if we could have

5 a short time to speak to Mr Phillips and then have the

6 questions put if possible, I would be grateful for that.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Aiken. Mr Griffin, do you have

8 any submission to make?

9 MR GRIFFIN: What I would like to do is speak briefly to

10 Mr Phillips.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: What we will do is adjourn to half past 10,

12 but no later, to allow the three counsel who have

13 addressed us to discuss these matters with Mr Phillips.

14 And we would be very grateful, Ms Winter, if you could

15 remain here until half past 10. Would that be an awful

16 problem for you?

17 A. No worse than any I have already encountered.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much, Ms Winter.

19 I sincerely hope that you can then be released.

20 A. Thank you.

21 (10.10 am)

22 (Short break)

23 (10.36 am)

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

25 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, I have had an opportunity to discuss




1 various matters with my learned friends and so far as

2 they go, there are two issues of disclosure. The first,

3 I have indicated, arising out of Ms Winter's evidence,

4 we are investigating -- I mean, the documents she has

5 referred to in the course of her evidence and which we

6 haven't been able to put our hands on at the moment --

7 and we will liaise with her and be in correspondence in

8 due course with the Full Participants with any other

9 material.

10 The second relates to the submission to which she

11 has made reference on a number of occasions, and I have

12 explained the background to that document. And again,

13 that is a matter that the Inquiry will consider and

14 write to the Full Participants on in due course.

15 So far as the further questions is concerned, I have

16 had a discussion with all three of them. It is not my

17 intention to ask any further questions of Ms Winter.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

19 MR GRIFFIN: Sir, may I just say that I am grateful for the

20 time to speak to Mr Phillips, and as a result of that

21 conversation, I have not asked him or pressed him to put

22 any further questions on behalf of my clients.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr Aiken?

24 MR AIKEN: I am also grateful for the time to speak to

25 Mr Phillips. I am, unfortunately, not in quite the same




1 position as my learned friend.

2 Can I say on the issue of the submission, I just

3 want to raise at this point, my Lord. I am slightly

4 concerned that a document is being discussed which we

5 have not read and it may be the case that there are

6 issues that touch my client, and that may not be the

7 case. And I am just a little concerned that we don't

8 have an opportunity to deal with the witness if that

9 turned out to be the case.

10 So I am raising the issue about her being recalled,

11 and I know that would not be something the Inquiry would

12 want, but from my client's perspective I would need to

13 be satisfied that there is nothing further relevant to

14 my client in any document that I haven't seen. And I am

15 happy to leave that with the Inquiry to come back to

16 us on.

17 On the issue of the questions, I apologise this is

18 in handwriting but I can't do it any other way. I know

19 your practice has been to take in writing a proposal.


21 MR AIKEN: I have spoken to Mr Phillips. He does not wish

22 the matters to be raised further. I have noted down for

23 your consideration -- it would only take a couple of

24 minutes to have a look at, if you would.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Hand them up. Thank you. (Handed)




1 MR AIKEN: They are matters that arise from the statement,

2 my Lord, that haven't been touched on and I have tried

3 to do it in block capitals so hopefully it can be read.

4 (Pause)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: The Panel will not allow at this stage any

6 questioning of Ms Winter on these three matters in your

7 questions.

8 At a later stage in the Inquiry, you will probably

9 discover that it will be unnecessary to ask Ms Winter

10 questions relating to these three matters.

11 I hope that is a sufficient answer for the moment.

12 If you want any elucidation of what I have said, you can

13 have a word with Mr Phillips.

14 MR AIKEN: I will do, my Lord.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Aiken. Anything you

16 want to say, Mr Doran?

17 MR DORAN: I'm grateful for the time afforded at this stage,

18 sir.

19 I would simply echo the point made by Mr Aiken and

20 that is that it may well be that any further material

21 issued to us may cause us to make an application to the

22 Panel to have the witness recalled to deal with any

23 relevant issues arising.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Doran. If there are any

25 further applications relating to Ms Winter's evidence,




1 either in respect of documents or in respect of requests

2 for further questioning, those applications should be

3 put in writing to the Panel.

4 So far as today is concerned, Ms Winter is released

5 and she will now have time to catch the flight on which

6 she is booked to leave Belfast. Would you pass that

7 message on to her and thank her for staying later.

8 We will rise now for a quarter of an hour before the

9 next witness is called.

10 (10.41 am)

11 (Short adjournment)

12 (11.02 am)


14 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

16 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Cumaraswamy, can you give us your full

17 names, please.

18 A. Param Cumaraswamy.

19 Q. And do you have in front of you a hard copy of your

20 statement given to the Inquiry?

21 A. I have.

22 Q. I would like to show it to you on the screen, please.

23 It is at RNI-803-183 (displayed), and do we see your

24 signature at RNI-803-201 (displayed) and the date of

25 26th October 2007?




1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Going back to the beginning of your statement, I would

3 like to ask you just a few questions about your career.

4 You trained as a lawyer in the United Kingdom; is

5 that right?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. But you have been practising for many years now in

8 Malaysia and Singapore?

9 A. Yes, in Kuala Lumpur most of the time, but I am admitted

10 to practise in Singapore as well.

11 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you: how did you come to take up

12 the appointment as Special Rapporteur?

13 A. It was way back in 1994, when the United Nations

14 Commission on Human Rights created this new mandate on

15 the independence of judges and lawyers, as there had

16 been complaints to the United Nations of widespread

17 threats to the independence of judges and lawyers

18 universally.

19 As a result, a resolution was adopted in the

20 Commission to provide for this particular mandate, and

21 soon after the resolution, the chairman of the

22 Commission, who was then a Dutch diplomat, called me in

23 Kuala Lumpur and invited me to accept this appointment,

24 which after some discussion I agreed and accepted. And

25 I held on to the mandate. It was renewed twice and I




1 was on the mandate for nine years since 1994 to 2003.

2 Q. Thank you. Can you summarise for us, please, the extent

3 of your mandate?

4 A. The mandate was three-pronged: to investigate

5 allegations provided to me where there has been threats

6 on the independence of judges, lawyers and including

7 prosecutors, virtually the entire ambit of the

8 administration of justice.

9 It also called upon me to make recommendations,

10 after my investigations to the governments concerned, of

11 remedial measures, and where necessary to even provide

12 standards -- to provide some standards for the

13 protection of the independence of judges and lawyers.

14 And it was an universal mandate, and hence, throughout

15 the nine years, I virtually intervened in no less than

16 about 100 countries. I took on several in situ missions

17 around the regions of the world.

18 Q. So the mandate was worldwide?

19 A. It was a worldwide mandate and it was the mandate -- and

20 I was given complete independence in the matter, where,

21 as I have mentioned in my statement, even the

22 UN Secretary General couldn't interfere with my work,

23 neither could the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

24 But, however, special rapporteurs are accountable to

25 the then Commission on Human Rights. Now it is the




1 Council.

2 Q. And you would prepare, as I understand it, a report.

3 Was that on an annual basis?

4 A. Yes, that would be the thematic report on my

5 interventions in the various countries.

6 In addition to the thematic annual report, there

7 would also be special reports on missions I carried out

8 during the year in particular countries. They are the

9 mission reports.

10 Q. And in terms of the timing of the annual thematic

11 report, as I understand it, that would be delivered in

12 time for a hearing or meeting of the Commission, I

13 think, in April each year; is that right?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Thank you. Going back to the point you made a little

16 earlier, in relation to these thematic reports then,

17 there would be a section for each country where you had

18 intervened?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you about the practicalities of

21 all of this.

22 You continued, I assume, to work in Kuala Lumpur;

23 you had a practice there as a lawyer. So far as your UN

24 work is concerned, did you have an office in Geneva?

25 A. Yes, we special rapporteurs -- there were several




1 rapporteurs on different mandates and we are provided

2 kind of an office -- you can call it a little room --

3 where we share with other rapporteurs and also we share

4 assistants with other rapporteurs, because the UN had

5 a very small budget for these mandates.

6 Q. So the assistant that we know you had in this case,

7 Mr Parra, was he an official who you shared with other

8 rapporteurs?

9 A. Yes, he was -- if I remember, towards the end -- during

10 this particular period, he was also assisting my

11 colleague, Sir Nigel Rodley, on the mandate on torture.

12 Q. Thank you. So far as where you undertook your work, as

13 I understand it, Mr Parra was based in Geneva; is that

14 right?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And you would come to Geneva during the year but perhaps

17 no more than a few times?

18 A. Yes, about four to five times a year.

19 Q. Thank you. So during the other periods, when you were

20 based in your offices in Kuala Lumpur, did the work, the

21 rapporteur work, continue?

22 A. Oh, yes. With all these electronic mails, we were kept

23 occupied. In fact, I can say this: towards the end it

24 took something like 80 per cent of my time. And as you

25 know, UN special rapporteurs are not paid remuneration.




1 It is all voluntary.

2 It was an interesting task, but it did take a lot of

3 my time in Kuala Lumpur.

4 Q. So letters and other material would come to you and you

5 would no doubt liaise with Mr Parra as you processed the

6 work?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. In relation to what you described earlier as

9 interventions in various countries within your remit,

10 did those interventions always take the form of visits?

11 A. Not all. There are certain interventions which really

12 didn't require an in situ visit. It can also be very

13 costly and time consuming. Hence, we correspond with

14 the country concerned through their foreign ministries,

15 who are represented with their missions in Geneva.

16 So all our correspondence in those cases will be

17 addressed to the particular -- the respective missions

18 in Geneva and they will forward to their foreign

19 ministry and we get the responses from these missions on

20 behalf of their respective governments.

21 Q. Thank you. So far as those interventions which took the

22 form of actual visits, how many of those would there be

23 per year on average?

24 A. Well, in my particular case I recall it was on the

25 average about three to four visits. In the end, towards




1 the end, I recall there were no less than about 17 to

2 18 missions I carried out around --

3 Q. In all?

4 A. In all.

5 Q. Yes, thank you.

6 A. Around the world.

7 Q. Thank you. I think I am right in saying that you only

8 paid one visit of that kind during your terms of office

9 to the United Kingdom?

10 A. Yes. That was what I call an official mission.

11 As I mentioned in my statement, I had visited the

12 United Kingdom earlier before I made an official visit.

13 In the course, I took time off to attend to some of

14 my -- the concerns I had with the various officials when

15 I was in London and also one particular occasion when

16 I went to Belfast.

17 Q. Can we look at that part of your statement, please. It

18 is at paragraph 5. That is at RNI-803-184 (displayed).

19 Can we enlarge that paragraph, please.

20 So this is a visit that, as you describe it, was

21 unofficial and it was your first visit to

22 Northern Ireland?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Reading on in your statement, as I understand it, during

25 the currency of your mandate, even when you are making




1 unofficial visits, as it were, the mandate continues to

2 run?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And it looks from your statement as though the people

5 you met, the conversations that you had in 1995, were

6 taken into account by you in deciding in 1997 to launch

7 your mission to the United Kingdom?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Thank you. You tell us in this paragraph who you met on

10 that occasion -- representatives from the CAJ and the

11 Finucane family -- and also you had a meeting with

12 a small group of lawyers?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. As I understand it, you did not, as you put it here,

15 meet Rosemary Nelson on this visit. Is it right to

16 suggest to you that at this point, 1995, you hadn't

17 heard of Rosemary Nelson?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Thank you. And your interest, as you put it, was

20 a general interest at that stage, rather than an

21 interest in specific cases?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. So in terms of the impact this had on your later

24 decision to launch a mission, it was at that level, was

25 it, of general information which you gathered in the




1 course of your unofficial visit?

2 A. That's correct, because as I mentioned, I had already

3 received some information from the British Irish Rights

4 Watch about their concerns and their investigations into

5 the harassment of defence lawyers in Northern Ireland.

6 It was that which led me to that visit in 1995, and

7 thereafter I followed up with further interventions with

8 the UK Government and finally asking for an in situ

9 mission to both here in London and also to

10 Northern Ireland.

11 Q. Thank you. I hadn't appreciated that from your

12 statement. You think, do you, that it was as a result

13 of correspondence you had received from British Irish

14 Rights Watch and other NGOs that you decided to pay your

15 first visit in 1995?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Thank you. You say in paragraph 3 of your statement --

18 and this is at RNI-803-182 at the bottom of the page

19 (displayed) -- that you heard from Jane Winter of

20 British Irish Rights Watch very soon after you started

21 your appointment?

22 A. That's right.

23 Q. As I understand it, she continued to send you reports --

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. -- during the rest of the 1990s?




1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Can I just ask you to look, please, for the

3 first time at a passage in your final report, the final

4 report you issued in, I think, March or April 1998.

5 This is at RNI-106-088 (displayed).

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. It is paragraph 15. Do you see that there? Under the

8 heading "Intimidation and Harassment of Lawyers", it

9 says, paragraph 15:

10 "Since the inception of his mandate in 1994, the

11 Special Rapporteur has received numerous allegations

12 concerning the pattern of abusive remarks ..."

13 Et cetera. So far as you are concerned, is it right

14 to suggest that the principal information you received

15 before your visit came from the NGOs?

16 A. Yes, largely they were from the NGOs.

17 Q. And in making or in deciding in the course of 1997 to

18 launch your mission to the United Kingdom, is it again

19 right to say that the principal basis for that decision

20 was the information passed to you by the NGOs?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Thank you. So you were, presumably, then placing heavy

23 reliance on the reliability, indeed the validity, of

24 what they are telling you?

25 A. Oh, yes, there was quite a lot of substance in many of




1 the information I received from these NGOs, but also the

2 responses from the UK Government to some of my

3 interventions based on those information were also part

4 of the reasons which led me to call for an in situ

5 mission.

6 Q. To be clear about that, are you referring to responses

7 you received during the course of 1997 or earlier?

8 A. No, it was in connection with 1997 when I first began

9 the correspondence with the UK Government with regard to

10 these concerns.

11 Q. That was my understanding, that the first time you

12 raised the matters which had been the subject of these

13 reports, this information from the NGOs, with the UK

14 Government was in 1997?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And it was in the context, wasn't it, of a decision you

17 had already arrived at: namely, the decision to launch

18 your mission to the United Kingdom?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. So in terms of the timing of this, as I understand it,

21 you arrived at your decision, then you raised in the

22 course of that various allegations with them and they

23 responded and you then, later in the year, paid your

24 visit?

25 A. Correct.




1 Q. Were you aware of concern at the time or suggestion at

2 the time that you should perhaps have raised the

3 allegations, heard or considered the answer and then and

4 only then decided whether to launch your mission?

5 A. No. The way we operate, at least in my case, special

6 rapporteurs, we get all this information and when we

7 feel that there is a need to go there to ascertain from

8 the ground level in the particular state, we ask for

9 permission from the government concerned. We ask for

10 the consent of the government concerned.

11 We set out our concerns to the government, what we

12 want to ascertain, and then it is up to the government

13 then to decide whether to consent to an in situ mission

14 that of kind.

15 Q. Can I ask you about this particular government. When

16 you asked, did you have a clear expectation that they

17 would say yes?

18 A. I thought they would. It is also -- here, I must draw

19 the Commission's attention to the methodology in Geneva.

20 We interact with the missions, their

21 representatives, their diplomats. We meet them, they

22 either come to my office in Geneva or I go to meet them.

23 So in the case of the United Kingdom, they have been

24 extremely cooperative.

25 So the minute they received my letter requesting for




1 their consent to do the mission, they had no hesitation,

2 and we had our own terms of reference which we sent to

3 them. And they looked at the terms of reference and

4 they acceded to most of the requests I made, including,

5 after some hesitation, to allow me to visit the high

6 security prison here in Belmarsh in London. Hence, they

7 were very cooperative and they had no hesitation in

8 arranging for that mission.

9 Q. Thank you. Can I just return to the question of the

10 information you received from the NGOs. You deal with

11 it in paragraph 10 of your statement at RNI-803-186 at

12 the bottom of the page (displayed).

13 What steps did you take to satisfy yourself as to

14 the reliability of the information you were receiving

15 from these NGOs?

16 A. Firstly, we interact with the NGO. In my particular

17 case -- after my first visit, when I met the British

18 Irish Rights Watch here, and after receiving information

19 from them, and my visit -- my unofficial visit to

20 Belfast when I met the CAJ and met those lawyers, there

21 was no reasonable suspicion in my mind that some of the

22 allegations made, some of the observations made by the

23 NGOs were in any way suspect.

24 However, the only way to test the veracity is for me

25 to meet the people involved on the other side of the




1 fence, and that is why we asked for this mission.

2 I must also inform the Commission, this commission, that

3 the special rapporteurs generally -- not only myself but

4 the entire special procedures system of the

5 United Nations -- we have always considered the NGO

6 community, including the national and the international

7 NGOs, as our eyes and ears. Without their support,

8 without the information they collect from the ground, it

9 will be very difficult for special rapporteurs to carry

10 out their tasks and discharge their mandate.

11 So we rely heavily and, of course, we are always

12 cautious because they have their own perspective, they

13 are dealing only with one side, hence they pass the

14 information about what they hear from that side. So our

15 duty is, as far as possible, thereafter to

16 counter-check, putting forward all those concerns to the

17 authorities in the respective countries.

18 Q. And in relation to that, the counter-check, presumably

19 you could do that either in correspondence --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- as you indicated earlier, or by launching a mission

22 and meeting people for yourself?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And as I understand your statement, that was your aim:

25 to make sure that you had, as you put it, both sides of




1 the story?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And for that reason, in addition to meeting the NGOs,

4 the defence lawyers and others, as it were, on that

5 side, you arranged, didn't you, for meetings to take

6 place with the Chief Constable, with government

7 officials, with ministers and people, as it were, on the

8 other side, if I can put it that way?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Thank you. Can you look, please, at the first of the

11 letters in the chain of correspondence about your visit.

12 It is at RNI-109-001 (displayed).

13 As I understand it, this is the letter in which you

14 announce your wish to conduct a mission to the

15 United Kingdom. It is 21st February 1997.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And if we turn over the page to RNI-109-002 (displayed),

18 you express your interest in undertaking a fact-finding

19 mission to the United Kingdom?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Before we see how this develops, can I just ask you

22 about that expression "fact-finding mission" and what it

23 amounted to in practice?

24 A. Well, the fact-finding -- that is the term we use to

25 seek such missions, to go there and see for ourselves,




1 meet the concerned people on the ground and listen to

2 them as to what exactly are their responses to these

3 various allegations; in this particular case, the

4 harassment and intimidation of defence lawyers. And

5 also -- I may not have mentioned this this morning

6 yet -- I was also concerned about the 1989 murder of

7 Patrick Finucane, which was, at that point of time,

8 during that particular mission, also our focal point

9 which I pursued while in Belfast.

10 So there were really two major issues of concern

11 then.

12 Q. So at this early stage, where you announce your

13 interest, you think, do you, that there was, as it were,

14 the general topic of harassment and intimidation and

15 then the specific case of the murdered lawyer,

16 Patrick Finucane?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Thank you. In terms of the resources which would be

19 available to you in the course of a fact-finding

20 mission, you would obviously be leading the mission.

21 Would you generally take your assistant, Mr Parra, with

22 you?

23 A. It was always the practice to take at least one

24 assistant, and in countries where the English language

25 is not spoken, we take two interpreters with us.




1 Q. But in terms of other resources, other officials,

2 office, accommodation, et cetera, the impression one

3 gets from your statement is that really it was the two

4 of you using office accommodation in London and in

5 Belfast, which was provided for you by other

6 organisations?

7 A. Oh, no, no, no. The accommodation is all provided by

8 the UN itself. We stay in hotels. We do not accept any

9 payments or any form of arrangements from any other

10 organisations, including, for example, governments, when

11 they offer. And we, in order to preserve our

12 independence and impartiality, always reside in private

13 accommodation; that is, in hotels.

14 Q. It may be my fault: what I was really getting at is

15 whether you have your own offices --

16 A. No.

17 Q. No. So in terms --

18 A. We rely on the ground NGOs in the particular country to

19 make the arrangements, but we exactly tell them who are

20 the people we want to meet, and of course they will give

21 us some indication as to others we should meet because

22 they are on the ground, and we accommodate their

23 suggestions as well.

24 Q. Yes. So you would have a list of the people you wished

25 to meet and then you would consider their suggestions




1 and, if you agreed with them, ask them to make those

2 arrangements as well for you?

3 A. Yes. But insofar as those representatives, agencies of

4 government was concerned, all that will be arranged by

5 the government itself. The NGOs will have no access to

6 them. So these are all done by the governments

7 themselves and they will give us the schedules.

8 Q. Yes. And we have in our bundles the documents in which

9 the various departments set up the meetings for you?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Staying with the letter we were just looking at, which

12 is RNI-109-002 (displayed), can I just ask you this: in

13 this letter, as I understand it, the basis for the

14 mission or the focus for the mission about which you

15 were informing the British Government can be seen on the

16 previous page, RNI-109-001 and it is in that paragraph,

17 the second paragraph (displayed)?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So there are two points raised based on the last three

20 years of information: One, a difficulty in obtaining

21 access; and two, the question of intimidation.

22 Do you see that?

23 A. Yes, correct.

24 Q. So no reference at this stage in this letter to the

25 Finucane case, for example?




1 A. No, it was not mentioned there.

2 Q. So far as the next stage of the correspondence is

3 concerned, I think that you were in correspondence,

4 weren't you, with Jane Winter of British Irish Rights

5 Watch at this time?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Can we look, please, at RNI-110-001 (displayed).

8 That is a letter to you from her of 5th March and it

9 looks as though you had sent a letter to her over

10 a month before and indicated, one assumes in the letter,

11 that you had decided to make an official visit and to

12 seek consent for that to the United Kingdom?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. What you learnt from this letter and the third paragraph

15 was about the case of a female lawyer in

16 Northern Ireland?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And in due course you learnt, I think, didn't you, that

19 this was Rosemary Nelson?

20 A. Yes, in due course, yes.

21 Q. Your response was immediate. You faxed back to her the

22 next day -- and that is at RNI-110-003 (displayed) --

23 asking for further details.

24 Can I just ask you this: there are letters in the

25 bundle, in various forms on various pieces of paper,




1 from you. Is this a letter you would have sent from

2 your office in Kuala Lumpur?

3 A. It could have, because -- it could have originated from

4 my Kuala Lumpur office. One could easily detect it from

5 the fax number.

6 Q. It is signed with your first name, isn't it?

7 A. That's right.

8 Q. If you look to RNI-109-002 (displayed) again, that

9 appears to be a more formal signature. Of course it is

10 sent to the Ambassador?

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. And the paper, if you look at it at RNI-109-001

13 (displayed), is rather different?

14 A. It could be, because I do have my own letterheads which

15 we are provided with in Kuala Lumpur.

16 Q. Mr Parra in his statement tells us that there was

17 a version of the letter for use by you in Kuala Lumpur

18 and then another version which he would use with your

19 stamped signature in Geneva?

20 A. He uses the official UN letterhead.

21 Q. Okay, thank you.

22 So far as the case of the female solicitor,

23 Rosemary Nelson's case, is concerned, you received the

24 further information, didn't you, on 6th March and that

25 is at RNI-110-006 (displayed). Again, no name is




1 mentioned at this stage?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. But you see in the second line of the second paragraph,

4 the suggestion is made to you by Jane Winter that RUC

5 detectives have made death threats against her?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. That have become increasingly more violent. In the

8 course of the information you had received in previous

9 years from the NGOs, had you been told of death threats?

10 A. Are you referring to Northern Ireland itself?

11 Q. Yes. I'm sorry, I should have made that clear.

12 A. If I recall, this allegation of death threats could have

13 been made generally earlier when I received some of

14 these complaints, but not in a specific form of this

15 nature.

16 Q. So as far as you can recall, this was the first specific

17 case of a death threat that had been drawn to your

18 attention?

19 A. It could be, yes.

20 Q. Thank you. The information is then set out for you in

21 the letter which goes on to the following page,

22 RNI-110-007 (displayed). And what I wanted to ask you

23 about it is how did you respond to the information set

24 out in this letter?

25 A. This was one of the material information which I pursued




1 towards seeking an in situ mission and I would have

2 written a letter to the UK Government with regard to

3 these allegations. I cannot recall soon after this or

4 I may have just used this as a basis to seek the

5 permission in September.

6 Q. So did it firm up, if I can put it that way, your

7 decision to launch your mission to the United Kingdom?

8 A. Certainly.

9 Q. And as a result of this letter, did this solicitor's

10 case, Rosemary Nelson's case, become something you

11 wished to pursue further during the course of your

12 mission?

13 A. Yes. When I went into Belfast, I recall that

14 Rosemary Nelson's issue was not the prime focus. I was

15 more concerned at the time with regard to generally the

16 20 or 30 solicitors who are subjected to this -- alleged

17 to have been subjected to this harassment and

18 intimidations.

19 Rosemary Nelson came out more clearly after the

20 mission and the more information I received with regard

21 to the threats on her life.

22 Q. When you say after the mission, do you mean after you

23 left Northern Ireland at the end of October 1997?

24 A. That was the first time I met her in Northern Ireland,

25 and thereafter I received further information on the




1 sustained continuous threats she was receiving.

2 Q. Can I ask you to look, please, at the bottom of this

3 page we still have on the screen. There is a reference

4 there to Mr Mageean of the CAJ and specifically to the

5 fact that he had taken some statements from

6 Rosemary Nelson's clients.

7 Did you make contact or did your office make contact

8 with Mr Mageean, do you think?

9 A. Oh, yes. I know him.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. And they were very kind. They were really monitoring

12 the situation there and they were very pivotal to our

13 mission as well in arranging meetings and even providing

14 the venue for these meetings at their office with

15 solicitors -- the concerned solicitors.

16 Q. Are they one of the organisations that suggested the

17 lawyers you should meet while you were in

18 Northern Ireland?

19 A. Yes, they were providing the list of lawyers we meet,

20 correct.

21 Q. And they set up the meetings in Northern Ireland?

22 A. They set up the meetings.

23 Q. Yes, thank you. In relation to the statements that are

24 referred to in this paragraph we have on the screen, is

25 it right that you received copies of those statements




1 from Mr Mageean shortly after this in April 1997?

2 A. Yes, they may have all come -- quite a lot of these

3 materials would have come in to Geneva and they may have

4 been processed by Alan Parra.

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. And the CAJ do send us reports, periodic reports as

7 well. They are all available -- I think they were all

8 processed in Geneva.

9 Q. Thank you. Presumably both Mr Mageean and Ms Winter

10 were keen for you to launch your mission to the

11 United Kingdom?

12 A. Certainly they were quite happy to see a UN monitor

13 going in to do an independent study of the situation

14 there.

15 Q. Why do you think that was?

16 A. If I recall, they had been quite frustrated with the

17 kind of responses they never got from the authorities

18 concerned, particularly the RUC at that time. And of

19 course, they wanted somebody from outside to be involved

20 in the matter and to look at the issues -- for the

21 issues to be seen by an outside body like the UN

22 monitor. And this is -- I think it was more the

23 frustration, and it is nothing very new for

24 Northern Ireland -- but I have seen this in other

25 countries as well, where the NGOs, however constructive,




1 however important information they tend to produce,

2 often disregard it or are not attended to by the

3 authorities concerned. And very often many of these

4 NGOs in other countries would like to see an outside

5 body like the UN.

6 And that is why the special procedures system was in

7 fact created: to address these issues on a universal

8 level, because we are here dealing with breaches,

9 alleged breaches of international standards. Hence,

10 which other body would be more useful to address these

11 issues other than the United Nations itself?

12 Q. But of course, as you say in your statement, they

13 approach these issues from their own perspective, a

14 certain perspective. So presumably you were conscious

15 in this, as in other missions, that that in turn meant

16 that they wanted a certain result from the mission?

17 A. A more independent result, not a certain result.

18 I wouldn't say a certain result, a result which they

19 wanted to suit their own thoughts, their own agenda, but

20 a more independent approach to the issues then

21 prevailing.

22 Q. And presumably that also made you particularly concerned

23 to ensure that you were hearing the full story?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And hearing from all sides the debate?




1 A. Correct.

2 Q. We looked a little earlier at your letter, the original

3 letter in February to the Ambassador in Geneva and the

4 short reference there to the basis for the mission. Can

5 I ask you now to look at a letter you sent to him on

6 4th April, and this is at RNI-110-008 (displayed).

7 Although we don't have the intervening

8 correspondence, it looks from the second paragraph,

9 doesn't it, as though the Government had responded

10 promptly and accepted in principle the idea of the

11 visit?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. I infer also that the Ambassador's letter asked you to

14 provide details of the allegations which you intended to

15 investigate during the course of your fact-finding

16 mission?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And this is what you then set out for him, isn't it, in

19 the following six numbered paragraphs?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Just looking at them in turn, the first is the one with

22 which we are principally concerned and it is put, isn't

23 it -- the question of abuse of defence lawyers -- in

24 a very general way?

25 A. Correct.




1 Q. So at this stage you don't raise the specific case, do

2 you, of Rosemary Nelson?

3 A. No.

4 Q. So far as the next is concerned, it is the access point

5 that you had mentioned in your original letter of

6 21st February. Then at 4, the Finucane case that you

7 mentioned to me a little earlier, and then other issues

8 concerning the emergency legislation and allegations

9 about bugging?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That is over at RNI-110-009 (displayed).

12 You enclosed your standard terms of reference. We

13 see the reference to that at the last paragraph. Can we

14 have that on the screen, please (displayed), and we can

15 find the terms of reference at RNI-105-008 (displayed).

16 As I understand it, these were the standard terms that

17 you used for all of your missions?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And it sets out the guarantees and facilities by the

20 relevant government which were required in relation to

21 these missions?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And in particular at 2, freedom of enquiry, which

24 encompassed access to the relevant locations, contacts

25 of various different kinds, and at (e), full access to




1 all documentary material relevant to the mandate?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. So those were, as it were, the powers, if I can put it

4 that way -- it is expressed as a freedom rather than

5 a power, but those are the assurances, the guarantees,

6 that you expected and those were presumably the ways in

7 which you were able to make your fact-finding missions

8 effective?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. To ensure that you saw the right places, that you met

11 the right people and that you saw the right documents?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. And I assume that in this and in other missions you made

14 such use of those powers as you thought appropriate?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. So far as the question of how this more detailed set of

17 allegations and detailed basis for the mission is

18 concerned, you received a response from, I think, the

19 new ambassador in the post at RNI-105-030 (displayed) --

20 it is 9th May.

21 He introduces himself in the first paragraph and it

22 looks as though in fact, as something of a novice, he

23 hasn't mastered the necessary courtesies and formalities

24 at the beginning and end of the correspondence. But he

25 thanks you for your letter and says that the terms of




1 reference are acceptable and, as I understand it, from

2 this point on in the period of some six months until the

3 visit in October, arrangements were made for visits, for

4 meetings with the various individuals that you wished to

5 see?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. So in other words, from this point on, as far as you

8 were concerned, 9th May, there was no longer any

9 question whatsoever about the acceptability of your

10 mission; it was simply the practicality of it?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Thank you. In the middle of that period of arrangement

13 making, you received, didn't you, some more information

14 from British Irish Rights Watch?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. And we can see it at RNI-110-011 (displayed). It is

17 a letter from Jane Winter of 10th July, addressed to you

18 in Geneva. And here, for the first time, she used the

19 solicitor's name, didn't she?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And the letter enclosed two reports. The first we can

22 see at RNI-110-012 (displayed), and it related to what

23 are described as assaults upon Rosemary Nelson. And

24 then the second, a more general document, at RNI-110-014

25 of the same file, if we could have that on the screen,




1 please (displayed), which in fact concerned

2 Rosemary Nelson's involvement with a particular case,

3 the Colin Duffy case.

4 Can I ask you about this letter and its enclosures?

5 In relation to the information that you had on these two

6 issues, the assault and the Colin Duffy case, was this

7 the first information that you had received about it?

8 A. Detailed information, yes, a little more detailed

9 information.

10 Q. Do you think you had heard about these two incidents or

11 cases before you received this letter?

12 A. In the case of Colin Duffy, I remember seeing some

13 newspaper reports about his acquittal and not directly

14 from British Irish Rights Watch.

15 Q. In relation to the acquittal, he was acquitted on appeal

16 in relation to another case, an earlier case, but that

17 was in the autumn of the previous year?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. Do you think you had seen coverage of that?

20 A. I was here in London at the time and I read some

21 newspaper reports and that is how I came to know about

22 the fact that she was involved in that particular

23 matter.

24 Q. I see. So at that stage you were aware, were you, of

25 the fact that he was represented by Rosemary Nelson?




1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Yes. But so far as these particular incidents are

3 concerned which, as you see, took place in June and July

4 this year, 1997, can I take it that this was the first

5 you knew of those?

6 A. First time.

7 Q. Thank you. In relation to the information that was set

8 out in these reports, did you take any steps to

9 investigate further at this stage?

10 A. No. Investigate to this extent: I was already then

11 preparing to go there to do a mission, in situ mission.

12 I am not sure, so sure, whether I immediately

13 corresponded or intervened with the Government with

14 these allegations. But these were, as I said earlier,

15 allegations which led me to push for an in situ mission

16 to enquire from the others concerned and to establish at

17 least to satisfy my own mind that there are grounds for

18 concern.

19 Q. The first of the reports recounted an alleged assault on

20 Rosemary Nelson on the Garvaghy Road in the early part

21 of July, just shortly before the letter was sent to you.

22 Did that change your view in relation to the

23 allegations that you had already decided to investigate?

24 A. Change to this extent: that I felt that there was an

25 urgent need for me to go to Belfast to look into these




1 matters myself and to meet also the other lawyers

2 concerned in connection -- because this all related to

3 harassment and intimidation and this was one particular

4 case singled at this point of time.

5 So my concern then was to go -- ascertain whether

6 there were other allegations as well and see for myself.

7 Q. There were two aspects to these reports, weren't there?

8 The first report told you not of threats and

9 intimidation but of actual violence to a lawyer?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Did that change your view of your mission?

12 A. No, no, no.

13 Q. No. The second point about the reports, which

14 presumably you took into account, is that the

15 information was, as before, coming to you from one

16 source only; they were allegations and you hadn't heard

17 the other side, had you?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. No. So the question which arises is what you did at

20 this point, or indeed during your mission, to

21 investigate the other side, for example, of the

22 Garvaghy Road assault. Can you help us with that?

23 A. No. Can I just quickly go back to your question, the

24 last part of your question, please?

25 Q. Yes.




1 A. To go back to your question, if you can.

2 Q. I can't remember what it was. It is probably so long

3 that I can't remember what it was. We can check it on

4 the transcript. (Pause)

5 A. The last part.

6 Q. What I was asking is what you did at this point, or

7 indeed during your mission, to investigate the other

8 side, for example, of the Garvaghy Road assault?

9 A. No, when we did go on that mission, the first thing

10 I did was to meet one of the most important figures in

11 this whole exercise -- that is the Chief Constable --

12 because he would be a pivotal person for me to meet, to

13 enquire what his side of the story was in connection

14 with these allegations of intimidation and harassment of

15 defence lawyers.

16 So when I went in, I recall -- Rosemary Nelson,

17 again, was not specific on that first meeting. We were

18 very much generally talking about the different lawyers;

19 why the RUC then were indifferent to it, these various

20 allegations.

21 That is how I began the process of investigating

22 this in Belfast on the ground: to meet the very person

23 who was in charge of the police system there.

24 Q. Thank you. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. We will have a 10-minute gap




1 until quarter past 12, Mr Cumaraswamy.

2 (12.05 pm)

3 (Short break)

4 (12.18 pm)

5 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Cumaraswamy, we were looking at the

6 information you received from Jane Winter in her letter

7 of 10th July 1997.

8 Can we look next please, at your letter of

9 1st August that year, RNI-105-105 (displayed). Here,

10 you are writing to the Ambassador in Geneva, the UK's

11 representative at the UN, and as I understand it, the

12 first two paragraphs are fairly standard fare in which

13 you effectively give the details of your mandate and its

14 origin; is that right?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And then the specific detail comes in the first numbered

17 paragraph, and you there set out in summary form the

18 issues about which you have been informed by Jane Winter

19 in relation to the Colin Duffy case.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Now, can I just ask you: in relation to the first

22 sentence and the point you make there, that she has been

23 the victim of numerous death threats due to her

24 activities as a lawyer, apart from Jane Winter's letter

25 that we have just looked at, the one in July, what was




1 the basis, do you think, of that assertion, that she had

2 been the victim of numerous death threats?

3 A. If I recall, the term "numerous death threats" may be

4 a little far-reaching at that point of time, because it

5 was definitely this letter was based on the information

6 received from the British Irish Rights Watch.

7 Q. So as I understand it then, what you were doing in this

8 letter -- we will go and look at the second allegation

9 in a moment, but in relation to this first one, you were

10 passing on to the British Government what had been

11 passed to you by Jane Winter?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And the information passed to you by Jane Winter

14 represented the limit of the information that you had on

15 these issues?

16 A. At that point of time, yes.

17 Q. Yes. Looking at the next page, which is RNI-105-106

18 (displayed), the second point you raise -- if we can

19 enlarge that, please -- is in relation to the assault on

20 the Garvaghy Road. And again, can I take it that this

21 is, in summary form, a version of what you had been told

22 by Jane Winter about that?

23 A. Yes, in that letter, yes.

24 Q. Thank you. And so where you refer in the text here to

25 the source, the source is Jane Winter?




1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Thank you. The letter continues, if we go back to the

3 screen, please, with a recital by you of principles from

4 the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of

5 Lawyers?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And at the end, in the penultimate paragraph, you ask

8 for a response to these matters from the British

9 Government. Do you see that there?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. So, so far as this letter is concerned, you were not

12 waiting to investigate during your forthcoming visit;

13 you were, or perhaps you would say in addition, seeking

14 an answer from the Government within a month?

15 A. If at all, I could get an answer within a month, because

16 the normal procedure in such a situation would be for

17 the mission in Geneva to pass the letter to the ministry

18 in London and then pass it on to Belfast and gather

19 the kind of response and back to us. I am not very

20 clear whether we received a response within a month.

21 Q. Can I show you the response that we believe you did

22 receive, and it is at RNI-110-031 (displayed) and it

23 looks as though it took just over two months.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Because this is a response to that letter. Do you see




1 the 1st August, it says in the first line?

2 This comes from the Ambassador and what you are told

3 in the second paragraph is that complaints have been

4 made by the lawyer and the client that the lawyer,

5 Mrs Nelson, has not made herself available for

6 interview. And so far as those matters are concerned

7 then, that appears to have been the limit of the answer

8 that you received in relation to the allegations?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. This was received by you presumably not long before your

11 visit began; is that right?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Can you remember what view you took of this answer to

14 your allegations at the time?

15 A. Well, at that point of time, I was already on the verge

16 of going into Northern Ireland, so these were matters

17 I left for a follow-up while I was there. And there was

18 no particular view. It was a response I received to the

19 allegations. It was their position, and thereafter the

20 mission -- I was on mission then -- in Belfast.

21 Q. So far as the third paragraph of this letter is

22 concerned, you were given some up-to-date information

23 about the Colin Duffy case and told that he had been

24 released in relation to those charges.

25 As far as you can remember now, was that the final




1 piece of information you received in relation to

2 Rosemary Nelson?

3 A. In connection with that case, yes.

4 Q. Before your visit began?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Thank you. If we look, please, at RNI-106-085

7 (displayed), this is the start of your final report, the

8 report issued in March or April 1998, and we can see

9 from the very first paragraph that your mission took

10 place between 20th and 31st October in 1997.

11 So far as the focus of the mission, by this

12 stage, October, in other words the point where you are

13 actually heading out to Northern Ireland, so far as that

14 is concerned, had it changed over the preceding months?

15 A. Not really. As I mentioned earlier, the main focus of

16 that mission was with regard to allegations of

17 intimidation -- harassment and intimidation of defence

18 lawyers. So that was the thrust of the entire mission,

19 and of course added to that was the Patrick Finucane

20 case and hence these were just additional information I

21 was getting with regard to the main focus of the

22 allegations against -- allegations of harassment and

23 intimidation of defence lawyers.

24 Q. Yes. Can I ask you this: we have been focusing here,

25 clearly, on Rosemary Nelson's case and the




1 correspondence about that.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you remember whether you received further

4 information on that more general issue from the NGOs

5 over these summer months of 1997?

6 A. There could have been information received, because we

7 were receiving a lot of this information, and

8 particularly when the international NGOs particularly

9 came to know that I was going to visit, there were

10 additional informations coming also from New York, from

11 the Lawyers Committee, who are also monitoring the

12 developments in Northern Ireland. Hence, there were

13 a large number of interested groups addressing their

14 concerns and their -- the information they had received

15 with regard to what is happening in Northern Ireland on

16 this matter.

17 But they were consistent information with regard to

18 harassment and intimidation of defence lawyers.

19 Q. Presumably once the news got out that you were about to

20 pay a visit to have a formal mission to the

21 United Kingdom and specifically in relation to

22 Northern Ireland, those NGOs with an interest in the

23 matter would have sought to provide you with as much

24 information as they could?

25 A. Correct.




1 Q. Now, the organisation based in New York, I think you

2 said --

3 A. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

4 Q. Oh, yes, thank you very much.

5 So far as the visit itself is concerned, we can see

6 something of your itinerary in the report at

7 RNI-106-086. This is paragraph 7 (displayed). So you

8 began in London, I think?

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. And then the main part of the period was spent here in

11 Northern Ireland?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And you set out in this paragraph the various officials

14 whom you met over this period, and with the exception, I

15 think, of Mr Lloyd, can I take it that you did indeed

16 meet all the various individuals whose names appear in

17 this list?

18 A. Yes, most of them I must have met.

19 Q. So --

20 A. Some of them were met in groups.

21 Q. Yes. So it was a relatively short visit of some 11 days

22 in all, eight days in Belfast, and it must have been

23 very full?

24 A. It was very, very packed.

25 Q. Yes. If we look down to the bottom of the page and




1 paragraph 8, that was by no means the end of the list of

2 people you met because it continues with Ms Winter and

3 then goes over the page, RNI-106-086 (displayed), and

4 various individuals in Northern Ireland are mentioned

5 there, including Mr Mageean, the Finucane family, the

6 Chairman of the Bar Council and various officials of the

7 Law Society.

8 And then you say that you met a large number of

9 solicitors and barristers who were able to provide him

10 testimony on the forms of harassment they have

11 experienced. And you make the point in the next

12 sentence that you were of the view that it would be

13 inappropriate to name those with whom you met during the

14 course of the mission, unless explicitly authorised to

15 do so.

16 Now, that is then a general statement, as I

17 understand it, in relation to the other lawyers in

18 Northern Ireland whom you met?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. So far as the earlier sentence, which refers to

21 testimony, is concerned, presumably what we are talking

22 about here are meetings?

23 A. Meetings.

24 Q. Some perhaps between you and your assistant and another

25 person, some larger groups, but they were not formal




1 hearings in any sense, were they?

2 A. No, I think the word "testimony" is too restricted in

3 its meaning. It is not kind of a testimony we take in

4 courts or a sworn statement from the witnesses, no.

5 Q. No. People were not providing you with witness

6 statements?

7 A. No.

8 Q. They were simply telling you about their experiences and

9 no doubt answering whatever questions you had?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And presumably the same rules applied to the meetings

12 with the judges and ministers as applied to the meetings

13 with the lawyers who were dealing with cases on the

14 ground?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. In the course of the meetings, was your general practice

17 to be accompanied by your assistant, Mr Parra?

18 A. As far as possible in all these meetings he has been

19 present, he has been present, he takes handwritten notes

20 of some of these meetings wherever he was present.

21 Q. That, in terms of recording what was said at the meeting

22 or meetings, would be all you, for your part, had?

23 A. I beg your pardon?

24 Q. So far as your records of meetings, they would consist,

25 would they, of Mr Parra's notes?




1 A. His notes, yes.

2 Q. Together with your memory and his memory?

3 A. My memory, yes.

4 Q. Given the relatively informal nature of the meetings,

5 presumably it fell to you to pursue issues and questions

6 with the people you were meeting in order to get to the

7 bottom --

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. -- of the issues you were investigating. You couldn't

10 force anybody to speak to you?

11 A. No.

12 Q. If the occasion arose where somebody decided not to

13 come, there was, broadly speaking, not much you could do

14 about it?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And your views on the various issues must presumably

17 have been shaped by what you were told during the course

18 of your mission?

19 A. And also the materials presented to me before.

20 Q. The written materials?

21 A. Yes, and while on the mission.

22 Q. Yes, but in terms of the fact-finding while you were

23 there, it was presumably very much dependent on the sort

24 of people you met and whether they were forthcoming and

25 cooperative with you in the course of your discussions?




1 A. That would be correct.

2 Q. Yes. And it also follows, doesn't it, that the question

3 of who attended those meetings was itself important?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. You needed to meet the people who had the information,

6 who had the answers to the various questions?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. So in relation to the general issue of harassment and

9 intimidation, you had the prior written material and you

10 then had your meetings with, I think you say at one

11 point, 20 or so lawyers; is that right?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And the views expressed to you in those meetings would

14 have been an important part, presumably, in the views

15 that you expressed eventually in your report?

16 A. And also after listening to those involved with the

17 state agencies, including the police and others I met,

18 and as you will have seen from the report, I also met

19 the Law Society and gathered information from them in

20 connection with this issue, and also the Bar Council,

21 representatives from them.

22 So, therefore, it was a view formed after

23 gathering -- meeting all these various personalities and

24 listening to what they had to say.

25 Q. So that your aim was to get the full spectrum of views




1 on the issues which you were investigating?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. But by definition, it was something of a snapshot,

4 wasn't it?

5 A. You can describe it as a snapshot, but when you are in

6 that sort of a situation, you realise the amount of work

7 which had gone in to form those views, particularly

8 as Special Rapporteur.

9 We are observed, watched by the international

10 community and particularly those who are interested in

11 these issues. Hence, though you can describe it as

12 a snapshot kind of a mission, but in the formation of

13 the conclusions -- I won't refer to the

14 recommendations -- the conclusions, there is a lot of

15 thought put in to come to those conclusions and to

16 apprise the various information received, to see them

17 through and then come to a conclusion which will assist.

18 As I made very clear in my witness statement, that

19 the whole exercise in a situation like this was to call

20 for a further full enquiry. That is why I called,

21 towards the end, for a public inquiry, as nobody was

22 prosecuted in the case of Rosemary Nelson and also in

23 the case of Patrick Finucane. The only way to go to the

24 bottom and compel witnesses -- compel witnesses, compel

25 production of documents -- it's only by way of a public




1 inquiry where this could be done.

2 So insofar as our report and the conclusions

3 contained in the report was to really facilitate towards

4 the end for a formal, full inquiry into the issues which

5 I investigated.

6 Q. So in that sense, you saw your role as being one to

7 encourage or facilitate further, more detailed

8 investigation of the issues which you looked at in your

9 mission?

10 A. Certainly.

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. Certainly.

13 Q. Because the reason I use the expression "snapshot" was

14 because the visit itself was (a) relatively short and

15 (b) very full, as you have mentioned.

16 The position that you held was one of great

17 influence and, therefore, it behoved you presumably to

18 take great care with the conclusions that you reached in

19 relation to this rather limited fact-finding part --

20 A. Certainly.

21 Q. -- of your work.

22 So, as I understand it, what you are saying is that

23 after the mission is over, in this case at the end

24 of October 1997, there is then a substantial process of

25 consideration, of mulling over, if I can put it that




1 way?

2 A. Certainly.

3 Q. And of drafting what becomes the report. Is that a fair

4 way of putting it?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Did you ever in the course of your work make further

7 enquiries with the relevant government after the mission

8 was over, the actual visit was over?

9 A. Not further enquiries, but -- I recall after the mission

10 there were letters written to the UK-Geneva Mission

11 forwarding further complaints I received, particularly

12 with regard to the threat on Rosemary Nelson. There

13 were letters written to that effect thereafter.

14 But insofar as further enquiries are concerned, the

15 practice has always been that the Special Rapporteur, at

16 least in my case -- we forwarded our draft report, our

17 report in a draft form for the consideration of

18 the government concerned, for any response they have.

19 If there are any inaccuracies or anything they want

20 to point out, without any question of them trying to

21 interfere or influence as to how I should conclude my

22 report, but just to give the government and its agencies

23 whom I meet met an opportunity to have a look at the

24 conclusions and the recommendations, and also the facts

25 produced in my report, to enable them to respond within




1 a short period of time before the report is finalised.

2 Q. So in that sense, there was a further stage, as it were,

3 a safeguard, in the process?

4 A. Certainly.

5 Q. Whereby inaccuracies could be drawn to your attention.

6 But have I understood this correctly, that you did

7 not regard this phase as being an invitation to the

8 relevant government to indulge in redrafting?

9 A. Oh, no, no, no. We are very, very particular about

10 this. To just inform the Commission -- there have been

11 occasions, even at the Commission level, of particular

12 times when a special rapporteur is called upon to change

13 a particular paragraph or so, and there was a lot of

14 resistance from several governments as well who are

15 concerned about the independence of special rapporteurs.

16 But special rapporteurs do not easily permit any

17 changing of reports unless they are satisfied that there

18 is some compelling reason for such a change. It is very

19 important, because so long as we see that our

20 independence is not impinged on.

21 Q. Presumably you would have regarded such an attempt as an

22 infringement of that independence?

23 A. Of course, yes.

24 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you, please, about various

25 meetings that you had during your visit. And the first




1 I would like to touch on briefly you deal with in

2 paragraph 12 of your statement at RNI-803-187

3 (displayed).

4 Here, you refer to a meeting with

5 Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, who was at that point the

6 Independent Commissioner for the holding centres.

7 Just using this as an example, can I assume in this

8 case that Mr Parra would have been present with you?

9 A. Yes, I think -- Parra was present -- yes, he was

10 present.

11 Q. And would have been taking handwritten notes in the

12 usual way?

13 A. He would have taken handwritten notes.

14 Q. And at the end of it, of the mission, once this and all

15 the other meetings had taken place, did he then return

16 to the office in Geneva with all the notes?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And would the initial drafting fall to him?

19 A. He would have drafted the initial draft and subsequently

20 sent it to me, if I am not in Geneva at the time, and I

21 go through this draft. And there is a lot of work done

22 there at that stage to see that they reflect the exact

23 mission scenario then, and also whatever facts mentioned

24 therein are facts obtained through the relevant people

25 concerned, and whoever who is quoted there -- we are




1 satisfied that those quotes are correct.

2 And as far as the conclusions, the recommendations,

3 largely they are left with me. I am very particular

4 about that, and I don't endorse anything done by my

5 assistant. Hence, when it comes to -- in any of these

6 reports, my reports, we consider the conclusions are

7 very important, particularly when anything is attributed

8 to anyone, we are very careful to see that they are

9 supported by materials we have with us. Hence, there is

10 a lot of work done in preparation of the report.

11 Moreover, there is a safety valve in the sense that

12 we do send it to the government concerned to get their

13 response so that they don't get offended that they were

14 not -- they were taken by surprise on something which

15 they didn't know anything about.

16 Hence, in that way, between the time of the mission

17 and of finalisation of the draft, there is a lot of

18 inside workings between my assistant and myself, and

19 also the process of going through the materials which we

20 use for the report.

21 Q. So in this case, we know that the time between the visit

22 ending at the end of October and the issuing of the

23 draft was a period of over three months. Can I ask you,

24 based on your experience in this position, was that

25 about typical for a report of this kind?




1 A. No, the UK mission report was a reasonably difficult one

2 in the sense that the two main issues, other than the

3 matters relating to the visits to the holding centres

4 and access to lawyers and all our concerns, the main

5 concern here was harassment and intimidation and

6 Patrick Finucane.

7 I was quite conscious, particularly at the time with

8 the internal conflict which was on, that I had to be

9 extremely cautious in seeing that there is a proper

10 balance in the report and any conclusions would be

11 supported by whatever I found during the mission.

12 So the three months was quite a critical period. Of

13 course, we have also other reports. I think, during

14 that period I did a short mission on Belgium, but that

15 was a very, very -- the issue there was a very small

16 issue. But this took a lot of time at our end.

17 Q. And during that time, presumably, drafting was passing

18 backwards and forwards between you and Mr Parra?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. You describe this process in paragraph 40, RNI-803-193

21 (displayed), and you say that you would have revamped

22 it -- that is the first draft. This is three lines from

23 the end:

24 "... taken things out and added things. I am

25 meticulous, and anything I put in my reports I must be




1 able to substantiate."

2 So in addition to the comments you have made about

3 the conclusions or recommendations, you were, as I

4 understand it, actively involved in the drafting of the

5 main body of the report?

6 A. Correct. Ultimately, we are responsible for our

7 reports. We can't pass the buck to anybody else. So we

8 have got to be careful that what is said is carefully

9 considered and weighed and produced within that

10 timeframe.

11 So the responsibility is entirely with us, and I

12 cannot possibly say that this was done by my assistant.

13 I have got nothing to say about it, but I am fully

14 responsible for all what is in the report.

15 Q. Yes. The other comment you made a little earlier is

16 that one of the, perhaps, reasons or maybe just the

17 effects of handing out the draft report to government

18 was to give government advanced warning, advanced notice

19 of what was going to appear.

20 So, as I understand it, there are two separate

21 things going on here: There is the drafting comments,

22 inaccuracies, and then there is the advanced warning?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. In relation to the first, the drafting comment, is it

25 right that you would also supply copies of the draft to




1 those you had met during your visits?

2 A. Invariably not, invariably not, because these are --

3 generally we send only to the government concerned. It

4 may be that in Geneva others may have got wind of what

5 may be the report, like NGOs would be quite concerned.

6 But as special rapporteurs, we only send the advance

7 copy to the government concerned.

8 It is also to assist the government to prepare

9 a response for the Commission -- at the Commission level

10 when the report is presented. Otherwise we are going to

11 take them by surprise and they won't have enough time to

12 respond. Hence, it is a kind of procedure we have

13 adopted in fairness particularly to the government

14 concerned.

15 In this particular case, it may be that in Geneva

16 the British Irish Rights Watch or others may have -- in

17 the course of the conversations -- because Alan Parra,

18 my assistant, would be talking to, in the preparation of

19 the draft itself, others. Hence, some information could

20 have got on to them. But generally, officially, we just

21 send this draft to the governments concerned.

22 Q. Well, it does look as though in this particular case

23 others, other people in Northern Ireland, other than the

24 Government, did obtain a copy of the draft report.

25 Can you assist us as to how that may have happened?




1 A. As I mentioned, it may have gone from the Geneva office,

2 because these NGOs were very much involved, in working

3 and providing all this information may have been

4 interested to have a look at the draft which was sent to

5 the government. But it may have been done on an

6 unofficial basis, but officially we normally communicate

7 and send a copy of the draft to the government.

8 Q. Returning to the paragraph we began with, which was

9 paragraph 12 -- it is at RNI-803-187 (displayed) -- it

10 concerns the meeting you had with Sir Louis Blom-Cooper.

11 And what I wanted to ask you is this: it looks from the

12 second sentence as though you discussed with him this

13 question of alleged intimidation and harassment. Do you

14 think that's right?

15 A. Well -- I beg your pardon, your question?

16 Q. Do you see in paragraph 12, the second sentence, what I

17 was trying to suggest to you is it looks as though in

18 your meeting with Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, you discussed

19 with him this general question of intimidation and

20 harassment of lawyers; is that right?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And you say in the next sentence:

23 "I do recall that he was quite concerned about some

24 of the things that were happening."

25 Now, are you able to give us any more detail about




1 the concern he expressed?

2 A. No, I think if I recall Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's meeting,

3 short meeting, he was concerned with regard to these

4 allegations which he has himself heard about, harassment

5 and intimidation of defence lawyers, and he was quite

6 concerned about it. That is why I mentioned also in

7 that same sentence, he was, though an independent

8 commissioner for the holding centres only, he was not so

9 resistant in the defence of the police as

10 Ronnie Flanagan.

11 Q. It looks as though he told you he wanted, or he would

12 favour, as he put it there, an independent

13 investigation. Was that into the issue generally?

14 A. Into the allegation of harassment and intimidation.

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Of defence lawyers.

17 Q. Not into any particular --

18 A. No, generally about the defence lawyers' concerns.

19 Q. Can you remember any other comments or observations

20 which he made in the course of your meeting about

21 defence solicitors and their clients?

22 A. There was some remark he made which became an issue. I

23 can't immediately recall here. It became a little small

24 issue subsequently, but it was not kind of an issue

25 which blew out of proportion.




1 Q. And you can't remember what it was?

2 A. No, it was in connection with something that he said and

3 later on there was a denial or so.

4 Q. Sir, we have passed 1 o'clock.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Cumaraswamy, where did you have this

6 meeting with Sir Louis? Can you remember that?

7 A. At his office. It was -- he had a small office, if

8 I recall.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Where? Over here?

10 A. No, it was in Belfast.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: In Belfast, yes. You said that a draft

12 report might have in some way unofficially been sent to

13 some NGO. Who would have done that? What sort of

14 person?

15 A. It may have emanated -- because in Geneva, for example,

16 my assistant was very much in touch and constantly in

17 touch with all these various individuals who are

18 supplying all this information. It could have

19 emanated -- I am not so certain whether they had the

20 entire text of the draft report or they had just some of

21 the extracts or they heard what was going to be in the

22 draft.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you suggesting that Mr Parra may have

24 provided parts of the drafts to NGOs or ...?

25 A. I can't see any other way it could have got out. I




1 haven't discussed that -- this particular part with

2 Alan Parra, because it was not of any great concern at

3 that time for me. We were concerned about dealing with

4 the UK Government, who had some concerns.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Cumaraswamy, would it be

6 possible for you to be here tomorrow morning at

7 a quarter past nine?

8 A. That would be fine with me.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Good. Because, sadly, you started rather

10 late this morning, later than expected. So it would

11 certainly assist us if you could be here at quarter past

12 nine tomorrow.

13 A. If you want me earlier --

14 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I think quarter past nine will be

15 certainly early enough for me.

16 A. Thank you.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will hear the rest

18 of your evidence tomorrow morning, and we will adjourn

19 now until five past two.

20 (1.05 pm)

21 (The short adjournment)

22 (2.05 pm)

23 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, before we go over to the link with

24 New York, which you can see, I think, from the screen is

25 working, can I just mention that we have handed out the




1 witness timetable, this for next week, and as I think is

2 obvious from it, this is the best we can do at the

3 moment. We hope to fill some of the remaining gaps, but

4 we thought it important to get what we have arranged out

5 to the Full Participants as soon as possible.

6 You will see that in addition to our usual Monday

7 afternoon start, this next week the Inquiry is not

8 sitting on Thursday afternoon or Friday.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. May the witness be affirmed or

10 take the oath, please.

11 MS JULIA HALL (sworn)

12 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

14 MR PHILLIPS: Ms Hall, I hope you can hear me, can you?

15 A. Yes, I can hear you fine.

16 Q. Thank you. Can you give us your full names, please.

17 A. My name is Julia Hall.

18 Q. Thank you. Do you have in front of you a copy of your

19 witness statement to the Inquiry? On our screens it

20 will be at RNI-808-086 (displayed). Do you have the

21 hard copy --

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Thank you. If you turn over, please, to the final page,

24 RNI-808-099 (displayed). Do we see your signature there

25 and the date of 12th October last year, 2007?




1 A. The paging on my statement that I have in front of me is

2 wee bit different. Hold on. (Pause)

3 Yes, RNI-808-099, that's correct.

4 Q. Thank you very much. Just before we dive into the

5 questions, you have, as I hope we have established,

6 a hard copy of your statement in front of you. Is that

7 right?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Yes. And do you have a screen for displaying documents

10 in front of you as well?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. Thank you. Now, what we have learnt by experience is

13 that it is sometimes difficult to read documents on the

14 screen unless they are enlarged. So can I ask you,

15 please, if I start referring to a document which is on

16 your screen but it hasn't been enlarged, can you ask for

17 that to be done, because then you will be able to read

18 it properly?

19 A. Yes, will do.

20 Q. Thank you. Looking at your statement, we see that you

21 are a law graduate. This is paragraph 3. This is at

22 RNI-808-086 (displayed). Have you ever practised as

23 a lawyer?

24 A. It depends on what you means by practising. I am

25 admitted to the Bar in the State of New York. So I am




1 at the Bar. I came right from law school to Human Rights

2 Watch on a fellowship and have worked on human rights

3 law since my graduation from law school.

4 I have not practised as an attorney in the

5 United States, but have done expert work in US courts

6 and have done work in foreign courts as an expert and at

7 the European Court of Human Rights.

8 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us a little more about the

9 organisation, Human Rights Watch? What is its purpose?

10 A. Human Rights Watch is an international independent,

11 non-partisan human rights organisation. Its hub is in

12 New York City. However, we have offices all around the

13 world, in London, Brussels, Geneva, Moscow, et cetera.

14 Our main purpose is to monitor, document and

15 research human rights violations globally, and that

16 comprises work in over 70 countries, and to do advocacy

17 for positive change to human rights law and policy in

18 those countries.

19 Q. So Northern Ireland was only one of a large number of

20 countries in which your organisation had an interest?

21 A. It is. However, when I worked in Northern Ireland, from

22 the time I joined Human Rights Watch in 1996, I worked

23 exclusively in Northern Ireland and on no other

24 countries until roughly 1998.

25 Q. Thank you. It looks from your statement as though that




1 was indeed your first project with the organisation on

2 joining. You immediately undertook a piece of work in

3 relation to policing, I think; is that right?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And in due course you produced a report in May the

6 following year entitled "To Serve Without Favour:

7 Policing Human Rights and Accountability in

8 Northern Ireland". Is that right?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Can I just ask you to summarise, if it's possible, what

11 was no doubt a long piece of work? What were the themes

12 of your report?

13 A. The report looked at roughly four different areas with

14 respect to policing: powers under the emergency laws;

15 the policing of parades and marches; issues related to

16 collusion and possible involvement by the security

17 forces and the police in the killings of certain people

18 and other human rights violations in Northern Ireland;

19 and the last was -- dealt with actually paramilitary

20 violations, so-called punishment beatings in both the

21 Loyalist community and in the Republican community.

22 Q. In order to prepare yourself for this research work, did

23 you conduct research and reading in the United States of

24 America?

25 A. Well, yes. In fact, the minute I learned that I was




1 joining Human Rights Watch, I understood that my project

2 would be related to policing in Northern Ireland. So

3 there was a great deal of advance preparation for the

4 mission.

5 Once I came to Human Rights Watch in September 1996,

6 there was a very -- intense would be an

7 understatement -- period of research and reading and

8 liaising with various actors to set up the parameters of

9 the mission, the research questions to be looked into,

10 contacts, assistance on the ground, et cetera.

11 And then we came to Northern Ireland, I believe, in

12 late October 1996 and were on the ground for a number of

13 weeks and then did a very intense follow-up period of

14 some months before the report was actually issued

15 in May 1997.

16 Q. And I think it is right, isn't it, that it was during

17 that visit beginning in, I think you said, late October

18 of 1996 that you first met Rosemary Nelson?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. And you deal with this in paragraph 56 of your

21 statement, which is on the next page, RNI-808-087

22 (displayed), and it seems as though your first visit

23 took place in the context of a Garvaghy Road meeting; is

24 that right?

25 A. That's correct.




1 Q. On 17th November. And as I understand it, she was the

2 organiser of the meeting but was not a speaker at the

3 meeting; is that right?

4 A. That's correct. It was very difficult to arrange

5 a meeting with the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition.

6 There had been quite a bit of attention paid to the

7 Coalition, some of it welcome, much of it unwelcome, and

8 they were somewhat reluctant to meet with any other

9 people at that time.

10 So Rosemary was quite helpful in explaining the work

11 that Human Rights Watch had done, the credibility it had

12 built in the international community, and if it weren't

13 for Rosemary, we probably would not have been able to

14 meet with the Garvaghy Road group.

15 Q. Was she at that point acting for them as their lawyer?

16 A. Yes, that's my recollection.

17 Q. And so did you effectively use her services in order to

18 set up the meeting?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. From that point, in November 1996 when you first met

21 her, to the time of her murder in March 1999, how

22 regularly were you in contact with Rosemary Nelson?

23 A. I would say over the course of those two to two and

24 a half years I may have had a dozen interactions with

25 Rosemary, whether it was by telephone or in person.




1 Q. Right. In your statement at paragraph 31 -- and this is

2 page RNI-808-095 (displayed) -- you say in the middle of

3 the paragraph that your level of contact had been high

4 with Rosemary.

5 By that, do you mean the number of interactions that

6 you had with her over that period, i.e. the dozen?

7 A. I think by the standards of a human rights lawyer and

8 researcher maintaining contact with someone on the

9 ground who is a colleague, in a collegiate organisation

10 or a lawyer colleague once every couple of months would

11 be considered relatively high contact.

12 In many instances, when you write a human rights

13 report, you might have one or two contacts with someone

14 and never have another contact with them again. You

15 take that information to the government and you do

16 advocacy with the government, but you do not necessarily

17 go back to those contacts.

18 Relatively high level of contact for me would be

19 consistent contact over a period of time, which I felt

20 that I did have with Rosemary.

21 Q. So this was a case, was it, where you met her, and you

22 describe in your statement the subsequent conversations,

23 and you referred to her in the report, which was issued

24 in May, I think, didn't you?

25 A. That's correct.




1 Q. But you maintained that contact after that date up until

2 indeed the time of her murder?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, in general, in the conversations you had

5 with her did you focus on the work that she was doing or

6 on her own personal position?

7 A. With the exception of my first meeting, my first two

8 meetings with Rosemary Nelson, every other contact I had

9 with her was a combination of both.

10 Q. Thank you. So far as that first meeting was concerned,

11 in November 1996, as I understand it, at this point of

12 your research you did not plan to focus on her or her

13 work or include her in your report; is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. But as a result of what she told you, as I understand

16 your evidence, you decided that you wanted to speak to

17 her in more detail?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. And we can see what was then arranged in paragraph 7 of

20 your statement at the bottom of RNI-808-087 (displayed).

21 This was a meeting which you attended, but also it

22 was attended, wasn't it, by Rosemary Nelson and her

23 client, Colin Duffy?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Am I right in assuming, therefore, that you learnt,




1 perhaps at the earlier meeting two days before, that she

2 represented this particular client?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what was it about this particular client and his

5 case that interested you?

6 A. What interested me from the little information that we

7 had was the involvement in Colin Duffy's case of

8 witness C, who has turned out to be named, I believe,

9 even in our report as Lindsay Robb, and the

10 circumstances surrounding his testimony in the Duffy

11 case.

12 Q. So that was the prompt for you to suggest the meeting;

13 is that right?

14 A. Yes, it was.

15 Q. And in your account of the meeting, which begins on the

16 next page, RNI-808-088 (displayed), you describe the way

17 the meeting went, and it appears to have concentrated on

18 that case as opposed to on Rosemary Nelson and her own

19 personal position. Is that a fair summary?

20 A. Yes. In fact, it was almost -- it was incidental, the

21 way that Mr Duffy even brought up in the course of that

22 interview the threats against Rosemary. She herself

23 never mentioned them and it was more toward the end of

24 our interview, if I recall correctly, that Mr Duffy, in

25 a very offhanded manner, began to discuss the threats




1 against Rosemary herself.

2 Q. And you say that he did that in an offhanded manner.

3 Can you help me a bit with that? What do you mean by

4 that?

5 A. Well, we discussed a number of times that he had been

6 taken into custody, and in the course of discussing that

7 information, I recall that he began to -- you know, he

8 was talking about his own -- what he perceived to be his

9 own mistreatment and his allegations of mistreatment,

10 and in the course of that began to say, "And that wasn't

11 the only thing", you know, kind of like, "You should

12 have seen what they said about Rosemary", which was the

13 first time really that I had any indication that

14 Rosemary had been mentioned by police officers to her

15 clients who were in custody.

16 Q. Was any detail provided?

17 A. Some. He did know, as you will see in the section on

18 our report, some of the things that were said directly

19 to him about Rosemary. This is what ignited an interest

20 in Rosemary's individual case, and when I came back to

21 the States, upon review of my notes I decided that

22 a further conversation with her would be appropriate,

23 and then we took it from there.

24 Q. So that a meeting which principally focused on

25 Mr Duffy's case led to your specific interest in what




1 Rosemary Nelson herself had experienced in

2 Northern Ireland?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Can we look, please, at the note of the conversation you

5 made when you came to speak to her the next year, and

6 this is at RNI-114-043.500 (displayed).

7 As I understand it, that is the note that you made

8 during your conversation with Rosemary Nelson on

9 7th March 1997; is that right?

10 A. That's right. I took -- as I was speaking to Rosemary

11 at the telephone, I took -- I typed out notes at the

12 computer while I was interviewing her, and that is what

13 you have -- that is what is on the screen right now.

14 Q. So you didn't make handwritten notes and type them up,

15 you typed the notes directly on to your computer?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Can I just ask you to turn back in the electronic bundle

18 to RNI-114-043 (displayed). It was the first document

19 that flicked up on the screen, in fact. Now, this looks

20 very similar. What is this document?

21 A. After Rosemary was murdered, Jane Winter from British

22 Irish Rights Watch contacted all of the NGOs and lawyers

23 who had had any contact with Rosemary and she asked us

24 to search through our files for any direct information

25 that we had about the intimidation and threats against




1 Rosemary.

2 So what I did was I took the original notes that I

3 had typed up during my conversation with Rosemary and

4 I retyped them with some of the handwritten information

5 that you see on that first document. And then, in order

6 to give Jane a sense of what the question was, I added

7 the questions into this version, and then I transmitted

8 that to Jane as part of the packet of materials that

9 Human Rights Watch gave her for her larger document,

10 which compiled all of the NGO's information about what

11 we knew about Rosemary.

12 Q. I understand. Thank you very much.

13 Could we go back to the first document we looked at,

14 which is RNI-114-043.500 (displayed). The effect I

15 think, therefore, of what you are telling us is that

16 this is the original note that you made on 7th March; is

17 that right?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. And there are no, as it were, supplementary handwritten

20 notes?

21 A. There are not.

22 Q. No, thank you. Presumably, you had set up this

23 telephone call by making an earlier contact with her to

24 explain that you wished to take details from her of the

25 matters which had been raised in your November meeting;




1 is that right?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. When you did that and explained to her what you wanted

4 to do, how did she react?

5 A. I'm afraid I do not recall the phone conversation that

6 led to this one. There must have been one, of course,

7 but I simply don't -- I don't recollect it.

8 Q. But presumably she was content for the telephone call to

9 take place?

10 A. I think maybe a little bit of explanation is in order.

11 When I visited Northern Ireland in November, it was

12 very clear to me that Rosemary was reluctant to make her

13 interaction with Human Rights Watch about her case.

14 There were two issues that she felt very strongly

15 about: One was the Garvaghy Road situation and the

16 other was Colin Duffy's case, and it was clear to me

17 then that she would be a reluctant participant in terms

18 of her own case. And it was -- I would have -- my

19 impression was that I would have pursued with her, if I

20 had any sense that this was an issue that was very high

21 on her priority list. And it was only, again, upon

22 coming home and realising that this case had the

23 hallmarks of forms of intimidation that we had seen in

24 the past -- obviously the most obvious case being the

25 Finucane case -- but then with other lawyers, that we




1 decided to pursue it.

2 So I think it is necessary to say that it was on

3 Rosemary's own reluctance, I suspect, that we did not

4 pursue this in November and it was on my pursuit of her

5 subsequently that she agreed to give this interview.

6 Q. So is it safe, then, to infer from that answer that when

7 this was first raised in the meeting by Colin Duffy, her

8 reaction made you think that this was something she

9 didn't want to get into?

10 A. My impression at that meeting was that her first concern

11 was for her client and also for her other clients on the

12 Garvaghy Road, that she deprioritised whatever

13 discomfort she had about the intimidation and the

14 threats that were made against her.

15 Q. And you did not, therefore, pursue it while you were in

16 Northern Ireland; you went back to the States and it was

17 later on that you realised that this was something you

18 did indeed want to investigate further. Can I ask --

19 A. Absolutely.

20 Q. Sorry. Can I ask you: in the context of the report that

21 you were researching and preparing as at that point --

22 it was issued some two months later -- what was it about

23 her case that you knew about at that stage that made you

24 decide to take this further step?

25 A. Well, the report was actually issued five to six months




1 later, not two months later, and the way that Human

2 Rights Watch does its research is very important to note

3 in this respect.

4 There were seven or eight notebooks full of notes.

5 There were boxes of information that we used to

6 corroborate what people said on the ground. There were

7 video tapes, there were television interviews, press

8 accounts, all of that information had to be sorted

9 through after November to arrive at the issues where we

10 felt we had the strongest argument to make in terms of

11 our human rights issues.

12 When it came to the issue of collusion, I felt

13 initially that Human Rights Watch would not address the

14 issue of collusion in this report. Other groups had

15 taken up the Finucane case with some gusto and with

16 a high degree of expertise. I did not know, as I was

17 going about my business in Northern Ireland, that I was

18 actually collecting information that was of relevance to

19 that issue. It was only when I got back home and spent

20 months and a considerable number of hours threading

21 through the information that I realised that in addition

22 to Rosemary's case, there were other cases you will see

23 in the chapter in the report.

24 I felt that we had amassed a critical enough amount

25 of information to include concerns about collusion in




1 the full report, and that is why I felt that pursuing

2 Rosemary was so important.

3 Q. Thank you. Just looking at the question of timing, my

4 understanding from your statement is that the report was

5 produced in May 1997; is that right?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. So the interview with Rosemary Nelson came two months

8 before the issuing of the report; is that right?

9 A. Yes. I'm sorry, I thought you meant two months after my

10 visit to Northern Ireland in November.

11 Q. Can I just ask you a question about the meeting with

12 Colin Duffy and Rosemary Nelson. Did you take notes of

13 that meeting?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And do you still have those notes?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. Is this a matter that the Inquiry has pursued with you

18 or raised with you?

19 A. Yes, they have.

20 Q. And as I understand it, you are going to consider your

21 position in relation to disclosure of those notes; is

22 that right?

23 A. I had agreed initially with the Inquiry that I would

24 disclose any information that I had directly from

25 Rosemary Nelson and any information about my own -- my




1 own project of researching this.

2 With respect to any information where we interviewed

3 a third party, Human Rights Watch would require the

4 consent of that third party, a full review of those

5 notes by the third party and the consent of that third

6 party. And I have informed the Inquiry that if

7 Mr Duffy -- if we are able to make contact with Mr Duffy

8 and he is able to review the notes and consent to their

9 transmission to the Inquiry, that we would be willing to

10 do that upon his informed consent.

11 Q. Thank you. So far as the telephone conversation is

12 concerned, I hope you have still got it on the screen

13 there and can read it. Do you have it there?

14 A. I do. It is a bit difficult to read but I have it in

15 front of me as well.

16 Q. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much.

17 Now, there is a reference in the first paragraph you

18 see to 12 of her clients being held at Gough Barracks in

19 Armagh. Do you see that in the first paragraph?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. And as I understand it, the way the notes go, there is

22 a general description of the threats, the first:

23 "... threats had been made that I was going to be

24 killed [and then] horrendous sexual threats ..."

25 And the way the note reads suggests that there was




1 then further detail provided in the second paragraph.

2 Is that how the conversation went?

3 A. Yes, it is.

4 Q. So am I right to take the second paragraph as, as it

5 were, particular examples of what is set out in the

6 first paragraph?

7 A. The second paragraph -- the second paragraph reflects

8 what Rosemary's clients said to her.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Then she in turn said to us.

11 Q. Yes. Beyond the detail that is set out in this note,

12 can you assist us with any further information or

13 particulars of the incidents as she described them to

14 you?

15 A. Well, you will note in the report itself that there

16 are three to four pages in the report "To Serve Without

17 Favour" that are dedicated to Rosemary Nelson.

18 I believe it is the first public report on her

19 intimidation, and in that report section we do have

20 excerpts from two of the witness statements -- from two

21 of the clients of those 12 that Rosemary referred to in

22 the first paragraph of the interview that I took with

23 her.

24 Q. Yes, but the question I was asking, you see, was about

25 the conversation that you had. You tell us in your




1 statement that you obtained those clients' statements, I

2 think, at a later stage; is that right?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. So at the time you were having this conversation on

5 7th March 1997. That is what I am asking you about at

6 the moment: not what is in the report, but about what

7 was said in the conversation. Do you follow?

8 A. I'm afraid I don't understand the question that you are

9 asking, the direct question that you are asking.

10 Q. The question I am trying to ask is this: can you

11 remember any further detail which was passed on to you

12 in this conversation by Rosemary Nelson?

13 A. No -- Rosemary didn't have a lot of time and Rosemary

14 never had a lot of time. And she was somewhat impatient

15 because she always had a very heavy client load. So

16 I took down these particulars, and you will see lower in

17 these notes there is a line referencing statements that

18 were given to Paul Mageean, and I figured that I would

19 follow up on those subsequently.

20 Q. So can you remember roughly how long the telephone

21 conversation took?

22 A. This would not -- if I was taking very precise notes --

23 as you mentioned, I was quite new to Human Rights Watch

24 although not new in terms of doing this work, but the

25 particular protocols for Human Rights Watch at the time




1 were that telephone interviews would be an exception.

2 And so if these notes, typed contemporaneously with my

3 conversation with her -- if this is what we have in

4 front of us, that was the full extent of our

5 conversation.

6 Q. So 10 minutes, 15 minutes?

7 A. Possibly 15 minutes, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to the way she described

9 these incidents, was it possible for you to judge in her

10 voice or the way she expressed herself how she felt

11 about the comments that were being made?

12 A. Oh, absolutely. And there is no doubt that there was --

13 there is no doubt (a) that she was very humiliated by

14 the comments. They dealt -- in particular, the comments

15 that were of a sexual nature were very disturbing to

16 her, the fact that her clients were being harassed and

17 her name was being brought up and they were saying

18 things about her ability to separate herself from

19 various political issues was very disturbing to her.

20 There was no doubt -- and you can see from the text

21 of that -- of some of her comments that there is a high

22 level of tolerance on the part of attorneys for some of

23 this because they consider it an occupational hazard,

24 but she says it got too heavy. And in fact, that was

25 very much the frame for this conversation: that it had




1 really gotten to be too much.

2 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you, please, about the statements.

3 As I understand it, although it doesn't record it in the

4 note here, you asked for and she promised to send the

5 client statements; is that correct?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. And you deal with it in paragraph 13 of your statement

8 at RNI-808-090 (displayed). And I think what you are

9 saying there is that although she didn't send you the

10 statements, you did in due course receive them?

11 A. I did. Actually, this is very emblematic of the way

12 that Rosemary proceeded. I did request the statements

13 from her but did not receive them from her, and had to

14 pursue getting them from another place.

15 Now, I do see that Paul Mageean is referenced here.

16 I do not recall my outreach to Paul Mageean, but

17 I assume that that is where I got the statements from.

18 Q. Can we have a look at the relevant section of your

19 report now. It is at RNI-833-188 (displayed). Do you

20 see at the bottom of this page the heading "The case of

21 Rosemary Nelson"? Can you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. This, as I have said, is a section of the

24 report in its published form. Can I take it that you

25 asked for her consent to use these details and indeed




1 use the name of her client and her own name in the

2 report?

3 A. Yes, in fact.

4 Q. Thank you. This is the beginning of the section. If we

5 turn over to RNI-833-189 (displayed), you will see

6 various quotations at the top of the page, which reflect

7 the note that we have already been looking at together.

8 And then lower down, do you see there are references to

9 written accounts of the threats levelled against them,

10 Colin Duffy and Rosemary Nelson, by clients and they are

11 referred to in the text as 1 and 2. Do you see that?

12 A. That's correct, yes.

13 Q. Does it follow then that by the time you were drafting

14 this document, published in May 1997, that you had

15 received from whoever it was copies of these two

16 statements?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Thank you very much. Can you look, please, at

19 RNI-206-070 (displayed). This is a statement of

20 a ciphered client and the next one is at RNI-206-072

21 (displayed). And again, so that you are aware, this

22 client has also received a cipher in the context of the

23 Inquiry.

24 Can I ask you to cut through this as quickly as we

25 can. Are these the two statements, or copies of them,




1 that you received?

2 A. Yes, they are.

3 Q. And from which you quoted in your report?

4 A. Yes, they are.

5 Q. Thank you very much.

6 When the report was published in May 1997, to whom

7 was it distributed?

8 A. I travelled to Northern Ireland with [name redacted], who

9 is the executive director of Human Rights Watch, to

10 release the report at the Europa Hotel.

11 The report was distributed widely to the media. It

12 was sent to every government actor that we had

13 interviewed who would have an interest in this,

14 including the Chief Constable of the RUC,

15 Ronnie Flanagan, to NGOs, to the relatives of any of the

16 people that we referenced in the report. It was

17 broadly, broadly distributed, hundreds of copies.

18 Q. Do you think that you may have seen Rosemary Nelson at

19 the launch of the report in May 1997; is that right?

20 A. Yes. I say that I am uncertain. The entire human

21 rights community in Northern Ireland and various and

22 sundry others did support the launch of this report and

23 I would have assumed that Rosemary would have been one

24 of those persons.

25 Q. Thank you. In trying to get the chronology right of the




1 months from here, am I right in thinking that you

2 attended the Garvaghy Road march later this year,

3 in July 1997?

4 A. We did, in fact. I was there, along with the

5 representative from Amnesty International, to monitor

6 the marching season that year.

7 Q. And so you were present during the events in early July

8 on the Garvaghy Road and the violence and disruption

9 that took place that year; is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I don't think that is an issue that you touch on in your

12 statement. Is that because you did not encounter or

13 have any relevant dealings with Rosemary Nelson during

14 that visit?

15 A. The sole purpose of that trip was to monitor police

16 activity and resident activity and the various

17 activities of the orders as it occurred in the context

18 of marches and to send reports back to Human Rights

19 Watch, which were subsequently posted on our website; a

20 kind of early form of blogging, if you will. And any

21 other information that I may have collected during that

22 trip would have not been used in the context of those

23 reports back. It may have been used subsequently for

24 other advocacy purposes after the summer season.

25 Q. But can you look at paragraph 16 of your statement at




1 RNI-808-090 at the bottom of the page (displayed). Could

2 we blow up 15 and 16, please.

3 Now, you see in 15 you talk about the launch of your

4 report, and then you say:

5 "The next time I actually saw Rosemary Nelson was

6 when I attended her offices. I can't recall the date of

7 the visit but I think it may have been between May 1997

8 and July 1998."

9 Is it possible that you attended the Garvaghy Road

10 in 1997, in July, and did not see her?

11 A. It is probably not -- it is probably very likely that

12 I did see Rosemary and it is something that I did not

13 remember at the time that I was giving the statement.

14 Q. Yes. Is there anything that you can remember now in

15 relation to any meeting with Rosemary Nelson which would

16 assist the Inquiry, for example, in relation to threats

17 and the other matters you discussed with her?

18 A. If I am not mistaken, that was the summer that Witness,

19 an organisation in New York City, was doing videotaping

20 of the events on the Garvaghy Road and Rosemary was

21 asked by Witness to give a statement for its video. And

22 I do recall that she did give that statement to Witness

23 and it was basically detailing the abuse that Rosemary

24 alleged that she suffered at the hands of RUC officers

25 in the course of the marches.




1 Q. But you yourself did not witness those events?

2 A. I myself did not witness those events.

3 Q. Thank you. Just before we move on to the next stage in

4 the chronology, can I ask you this question: you

5 confirmed earlier that you had received the two client

6 statements from which you quoted in your report. Did

7 you receive any other statements from clients, the

8 clients referred to in your conversation with her

9 in March 1997?

10 A. I did not.

11 Q. Because you will remember the number she gave was 12?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. So if there were any statements from the other 10, you

14 did not receive them?

15 A. I didn't. I probably did not ask for them.

16 At the time, in terms of Human Rights Watch's

17 methodology, we had been attempting to get away from

18 putting every single statement that we ever received in

19 every single report. We were playing with doing

20 appendices or simply asking lawyers and others for

21 statements that were the most relevant to the points

22 that we were trying to get across. And my suspicion is

23 that I would not have wanted 12 statements; I would have

24 wanted two or three of the most relevant statements to

25 include in the report.




1 Q. And did you leave that to her, as it were, to decide, to

2 choose?

3 A. Well, as I have said, Rosemary actually never sent me

4 these statements; it was the first of many attempts to

5 get information from Rosemary that, unfortunately, fell

6 to the bottom of her list of things to do. And so my

7 suspicion would be that when I contacted Paul Mageean or

8 CAJ and said that I wanted to include some of this

9 information, could you send me one or two statements,

10 two or three, a group of the most concise, that would be

11 most on point.

12 Q. Thank you. Insofar as the next part of your evidence is

13 concerned, I have already drawn your attention to the

14 rather wide range of dates that you have offered for

15 your visit to Rosemary Nelson's office, but what seems

16 to stick in your memory about it is that you were shown

17 by her a letter, a threat letter. Do you remember that?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. We can see the copy which she sent to you at RNI-114-046

20 (displayed). That is the letter which she dispatched

21 and I think the copy of the threat note is at the next

22 page, RNI-114-047 (displayed). Yes, it is a very bad

23 copy indeed. Can we see if we can get RNI-115-351 on

24 the screen, please (displayed).

25 Is that the threat note which was faxed to you? It




1 is a very bad copy probably even for you.

2 A. If it is the one that was faxed to us in July --

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. -- then yes. But because it looks so different --

5 I mean, they are flipped on (inaudible). Then, yes,

6 that is the one that -- it took quite a while. Rosemary

7 showed that to us in February of 1998 and it took quite

8 a while, you will note -- I don't think she faxed it to

9 us for several months, actually. It took quite a while

10 for us to actually get it faxed to us, but yes, that

11 is it.

12 Q. Let us have a go together at the chronology, shall we?

13 This letter, we know, is postmarked 3rd June 1998?

14 A. Hm-mm.

15 Q. And we have already looked at the covering letter, which

16 sent it to you, which was 30th July. So if, as you have

17 just said, the visit to Rosemary Nelson's office took

18 place in February, it seems unlikely, doesn't it, that

19 whatever threat note you saw was this one?

20 A. Yes, that would seem to be the case.

21 Q. So we are faced, aren't we, with a variety of

22 possibilities? Is it possible that the visit you paid

23 to the office was in June or July 1998 rather

24 than February?

25 A. I am very sorry to say that I can only recollect being




1 in Rosemary's office once and that was with Halya Gowan.

2 Now, the Inquiry provided me with Halya Gowan's

3 statement yesterday, which has the date of our meeting

4 with Rosemary at February of 1998.

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. So I am sorry, I cannot recollect -- I cannot piece

7 together, you know, whether I -- how the -- this kind of

8 confusion would have happened, except to say that it was

9 12 years ago, 10 years ago.

10 Q. Indeed.

11 A. So it was quite a while ago.

12 Q. Can I try it this way: When you received the fax at the

13 end of July 1998, was the document faxed to you the same

14 document that you had seen in the office?

15 A. I cannot say with complete certainty that they are the

16 same document.

17 Q. Do you think at the time you would have noticed, having

18 asked for one document, if you had been sent another

19 one?

20 A. What I recall is that the message in this threat letter

21 was one that I recall having heard Rosemary say out loud

22 to us in her office. You are telling me that that is

23 not possible, and so all I can say to the Inquiry is

24 that I apologise for my lack of recollection, but

25 I simply can't remember.




1 Q. Well, if you look at paragraph 18 of your statement --

2 this is RNI-808-091 (displayed), if we enlarge 18,

3 please -- you say there -- this is your visit to the

4 office:

5 "She produced a letter. I have specific

6 recollection of this letter visually and recall that it

7 had a separate envelope."

8 Just taking you up on that, what is your

9 recollection of the appearance of the letter?

10 A. My recollection is that she held it up, she took it out,

11 she held it up and that it would have had a separate

12 envelope. So she would have held it up and there would

13 have been an envelope either on her desk or in her hand.

14 Q. But can I ask you: what did it look like?

15 A. It was a simple piece of paper --

16 Q. Can you remember its colour --

17 A. -- that she held up. I cannot remember.

18 Q. You can't remember its colour?

19 A. I'm sorry, I cannot remember.

20 Q. Can you remember whether it was handwritten or typed?

21 A. I remember that it was handwritten.

22 Q. Can you remember --

23 A. I don't remember a typed letter.

24 Q. No. Can you remember whether the piece of paper was

25 large or small?




1 A. I recall that it was small; in other words, not a full

2 piece of paper.

3 Q. Moving away from the question of the threat letter or

4 note, can I just ask you to look back a little in your

5 statement. It is at the top of page RNI-808-091

6 (displayed), and you say in the second line:

7 "Despite the social nature of the visit ..."

8 This is the visit to the office that you are

9 describing:

10 "... we ended up ...."

11 I think that must be "speaking":

12 "... directly to Rosemary about the threats on her

13 life."

14 And you say:

15 "I wanted Rosemary to provide me with specific

16 details of the threats so that we could circulate these

17 to the relevant parties."

18 Can you see that?

19 A. Yes, I can see that.

20 Q. Just looking at that final sentence, you wanted to get

21 particulars or details from her, did you, so you could

22 provide them to other parties?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Did they include the other NGOs?

25 A. We would have been in the early stages then, I think, of




1 sharing information but certainly we would have -- we

2 would have shared information amongst ourselves.

3 Q. How would you have done that?

4 A. There was a coalition of groups who were working at that

5 time both on issues related to the marching season, but

6 mostly this coalition of groups was interested in the

7 peace process and interested in understanding the role

8 for human rights organisations in -- after any peace

9 agreement would have been brokered, and so we liaised

10 often together. We had phone conversations often

11 together, et cetera.

12 Q. So they would be passed on on the telephone, would they?

13 A. They would be passed -- for example, if Rosemary had

14 sent to us something, I might have shot an email to

15 a colleague and said, "I got this today, are you aware

16 of it?" or in a phone conversation.

17 I have to admit that we were not very good at this,

18 at sharing information about Rosemary in particular.

19 The broader issues of policing in a transition context,

20 et cetera, we stayed in touch religiously but it was

21 only after Rosemary was murdered that we realised how

22 diffuse the information and the action was on her case.

23 Q. Did you get from her further details of threats in the

24 course of that meeting?

25 A. Not that I can recall. I remember discussing with her,




1 I remember very clearly at that meeting her taking kind

2 of immediate action with respect to one client, where

3 we -- where she had said, "I am going to write a letter

4 right now," and she wrote a letter right then and had it

5 faxed.

6 So, no, I don't believe that we -- I don't believe

7 that we delved in any great detail into other specific

8 threats against her.

9 Q. So your conversation then focused, did it, on the case

10 of this particular client where she, in the course of

11 her meeting, was drafting a letter; is that right?

12 A. To be honest with you, the conversation was very

13 wide-ranging. It included social elements, it included

14 some discussion about threats against her, it included

15 some conversation about obstruction that she was

16 experiencing in the course of representing her clients.

17 Q. So far as her attitude to threats is concerned, you

18 describe her taking the view that receiving threats was

19 an occupational hazard. Was that the way she actually

20 put it to you?

21 A. No, it wasn't the way she actually put it to me.

22 Rosemary had a very stoic attitude toward the threats up

23 until a certain point, and that stoic attitude reminded

24 me of the notion of occupational hazard. So we used

25 that language to describe it.




1 Q. So that was your interpretation, rather than something

2 she said to you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And is it fair to say that, as far as you read her, she

5 was, as it were, shrugging her shoulders and determined

6 to get on with her work?

7 A. Initially I think that's true. However, you will note

8 in that first telephone interview I had with her that

9 she herself says that it has gotten to be too much, and

10 I think this was a tension in Rosemary's work that

11 existed for her every single day. Her pragmatism, her

12 stoicism, the idea that her clients and her family, of

13 course, everything else came first, and she came last,

14 but also moments where she would say to you with perfect

15 clarity that it was weighing on her. And that tension

16 existed right up until the time -- the last time I saw

17 Rosemary before she was killed.

18 Q. That was in February 1999?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. Yes. Was it possible for you to judge, comparing

21 the March telephone call and this meeting in the office

22 some time in 1998, whether in her view the problem had

23 got worse?

24 A. I think the incident on the Garvaghy Road, where she was

25 verbally and physically assaulted, was something that




1 made a real difference to her, that it was something --

2 it was a watershed, so to speak, where the threats and

3 the intimidation suddenly became physically real for

4 her. And I know for a fact that that frightened her

5 very, very much.

6 So I would say that it was that incident, which

7 I believe to have occurred in the summer of 1997, that

8 would have heightened her level of fear and, going into

9 the next year, would have framed it, would have -- that

10 was the next level and that was where she was that

11 following year.

12 Q. And again, can I just ask you: is that your impression,

13 your interpretation, or is that based on what she said

14 to you?

15 A. It -- I mean, if you are including the time that I spent

16 with Rosemary when she was in New York and specifically

17 staying at my home, then those were things that she

18 expressed to me. I did not -- I understood Rosemary to

19 be feeling extremely vulnerable.

20 Now, the context within which some of those

21 statements were made to me were unusual. She was in

22 New York for the first time, I believe. She was meeting

23 with various high profile actors. It was very

24 overwhelming in a lot of ways, and to come to my home

25 and to sit with me and my husband, I think she felt




1 a high degree of safety and was willing to speak very

2 honestly. And it was during those conversations at my

3 home that you realised that just -- just how weighty

4 these threats and this intimidation that she felt was

5 for her.

6 Q. In your statement, you say specifically that at that

7 time in October, I think it was, 1998 she was scared?

8 A. Yes, I believe that she was scared. I believe that

9 she -- to be quite honest with you, if I may be frank,

10 my impression of Rosemary was that, although stoic, she

11 was troubled by these threats and intimidation from the

12 moment that they began, and humiliated by them.

13 In the summer of 1997, when she experienced

14 a physical confrontation with the police, that

15 heightened the level of fear, and I do believe that she

16 was afraid and I have believed since then that she was

17 afraid. She was afraid when she spoke to me at my home.

18 She was -- when Halya Gowan and I met with her at the

19 conference in Belfast, that lunchtime conference, we

20 were discussing things socially, but then it did turn to

21 a conversation of the threats. There was hyper-context

22 for everything, and that was these threats and this form

23 of intimidation against Rosemary. Yes, I do believe

24 that she was afraid.

25 Q. Thank you. Can I just take you back briefly to the




1 meeting at the office earlier in 1998. The question

2 that arises -- and it is the same point I asked you

3 about your meeting in November 1996 -- is whether you

4 made notes of the information she gave you during the

5 course of that meeting, whenever it was in 1998?

6 A. No, and I think that in hindsight it was a mistake not

7 to make notes of that meeting, as is evidenced by the

8 confusion over what occurred at that meeting.

9 The meeting was intended to be a social call. There

10 was some free time in the schedule, we wanted to see

11 Rosemary. We did not treat it, I must say, with the

12 degree of attention in terms of notetaking that we

13 should have.

14 Let me just speak on behalf of myself only, that I

15 did not take notes and perhaps that would have been the

16 more attentive thing to have done at that time.

17 Q. On the question of timing, I am going to try and offer

18 some more suggestions. Could you look, please, at

19 RNI-115-144 (displayed). This is not your document; it

20 is in fact an attendance note prepared by Jane Winter of

21 British Irish Rights Watch, and you see the date is

22 in February 1998, impressively at 10 pm.

23 If you go down the note, it is about another

24 ciphered client; you will see the cipher there at the

25 top of the page. About six lines down -- from the end




1 rather, it says:

2 "Halya Gowan ..."

3 I hope I have pronounced that correctly:

4 "... of Amnesty International and Julia Hall of

5 Human Rights Watch Helsinki happened to be in

6 Northern Ireland on 27th February 1998 and they advised

7 Rosemary Nelson to serve a letter on the RUC asking to

8 be present during any further interviews of her client

9 in order to protect both his interests and her own in

10 view of this abuse."

11 So the note had earlier set out another series of

12 comments, passed back this time by this particular

13 client, C200. And it looks, doesn't it, as though this

14 may be the letter that you referred to in your own

15 statement at paragraph 17?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And that means, in turn, that it also looks as though

18 you may well have been in Rosemary Nelson's office with

19 Halya Gowan in February that year?

20 A. That's correct. That's what it looks like.

21 Q. Indeed. I will just try and complete the picture.

22 If you look at RNI-217-015 (displayed), that is

23 a letter written by Rosemary Nelson, you see, on that

24 same date, 27th February 1998, about the same client.

25 And if we turn over the page to RNI-217-016 (displayed),




1 you will see there, as set out in Jane Winter's note,

2 that the request is made that she should be permitted to

3 remain with her client during all future interviews.

4 So it looks, doesn't it, as though this may well

5 have been the letter on which you gave her advice, which

6 you discussed with her in her office in 1998?

7 A. Yes, that seems to be the case.

8 Q. Thank you. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, 20 past three, please.

10 (3.10 pm)

11 (Short break)

12 (3.20 pm)

13 MR PHILLIPS: Ms Hall, I am afraid I am going to have to

14 take you back to the meeting you had with Colin Duffy

15 in November 1996. I am sorry about that, but I need to

16 ask you just one or two questions about the notes we

17 discussed earlier.

18 You clearly set out your position in relation to

19 that. Can I ask you, please, to look at paragraph 7 of

20 your statement at RNI-808-087 (displayed). Do you see

21 at the very end --

22 A. Can you repeat the paragraph, please?

23 Q. Paragraph 7 at RNI-808-087 (displayed). Do you see the

24 last two lines of this page say:

25 "The meeting lasted for some time and I accumulated




1 ten pages of notes which I still have and I am prepared

2 to supply to the Inquiry if requested to do so."

3 And then these words:

4 "But there is no reference to any discussions with

5 Rosemary Nelson."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can I ask you this question: in relation to the comments

9 made in the course of the meeting by Mr Duffy, the

10 reference he made, which you described as offhanded, to

11 derogatory comments, do the notes contain any reference

12 to those comments made by Mr Duffy?

13 A. If you mean the comments that he made about

14 Rosemary's -- the threats against Rosemary?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Then, yes, the notes do contain Colin Duffy's comments

17 about the threats against Rosemary.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. They do not contain any comments from Rosemary Nelson

20 herself about threats and intimidation against her.

21 Q. Thank you very much. Well, obviously this is

22 a matter -- I know you have taken this point on board

23 and will do what you can to expedite the matter, but if

24 you would be in touch with the Inquiry as soon as

25 possible, I would be very grateful.




1 A. I will.

2 Q. You tell us that your next meeting with Rosemary Nelson

3 took place in October, I think, of 1998 when she came

4 over to give evidence to the congressional subcommittee.

5 And you start to talk about that in paragraph 19 of your

6 statement, and that is at RNI-808-091 (displayed). Do

7 you see that?

8 A. Yes. May I ask that the documents be put on the large

9 screen as well. We have got nothing on our large

10 screen.

11 Q. Right. I am not the man to ask the technical questions,

12 I am afraid. If we --

13 A. I have the written statement in front of me and am happy

14 to work from it if we need to.

15 Q. I think that would make it a lot easier. Can you look,

16 please, at paragraph 19 at the bottom of this page. Do

17 you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you have already mentioned that on this occasion

20 Rosemary Nelson stayed with you. Were you present when

21 she gave evidence at the Congressional Subcommittee?

22 A. No, I was not.

23 Q. In that case, can I simply ask you about the

24 conversations that you did have with her in your house,

25 which you begin to describe for us in paragraph 20 of




1 your statement. Do you have that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. You begin by saying that:

4 "Whilst she was there, she spoke of the threat that

5 she had received from RUC officers. I cannot remember

6 the specifics of what she said."

7 I assume that in this domestic social context there

8 is no question of you making notes of the conversations

9 you had with her?

10 A. There would be no question that I would not have taken

11 notes when she was visiting me and my husband at our

12 home.

13 The reason that I know that she spoke about the

14 threats is because it led her at one point to check in

15 at home and because my subsequent conversations with my

16 husband who, up to that time did not know Rosemary, were

17 generally framed by the idea that she spoke to both of

18 us about the threat and the intimidation and her fears.

19 Q. And you detected, I think, a change in her attitude to

20 these problems, didn't you?

21 A. I did. I also think that that change also resulted from

22 a change possibly in our own relationship from that of

23 being pure professional colleagues to having her as

24 a personal guest in my home.

25 Q. She was being more open with you?




1 A. In fact I do believe that is the case.

2 Q. You think she was being more open with you?

3 A. I think that she was speaking to me and to my partner as

4 more of a personal friend at that point, and so many of

5 the obstacles that we encounter in terms of how we

6 present -- not obstacles, but the idea that we present

7 ourselves professionally with our colleagues, some of

8 that guard was down. Not all of it.

9 I don't know to indicate that Rosemary accepted me

10 as her best pal, but it was very clear that she was much

11 more comfortable in that context and felt freer and

12 safer to speak more openly.

13 Q. In the course of your description of your conversations

14 at this point, you refer to the Garvaghy Road incident,

15 the 1997 incident. This is paragraph 20 on the same

16 page, RNI-808-091 (displayed). We have it up on the

17 screen. And you say she mentioned it regularly and felt

18 that it was the point at which the RUC crystallised its

19 negative opinion of her.

20 Is that something she expressed in the course of

21 these conversations?

22 A. As I said before, I think Rosemary's clients up until

23 that point had been the conduits for the perceived

24 hostility, the perceived and very real hostility on the

25 part of the RUC.




1 It wasn't until she faced them personally in that

2 confrontation that I think it fully hit her that she was

3 a target for that hostility. I think up until that

4 point, she was one step removed and that direct

5 confrontation was something that really -- really gave

6 her some pause, actually made her believe -- made her

7 fully believe it, as opposed to protecting herself by

8 being one step removed and only getting the information

9 through her clients.

10 Q. But was this something she explained to you in the

11 course of your conversations in October 1998?

12 A. I would say yes.

13 Q. And you say later in the same paragraph:

14 "I believe it was also at this point ..."

15 And I think you mean the Garvaghy Road incident

16 point:

17 "... that Rosemary became a participant in relation

18 to the issues affecting her clients, i.e. the receipt of

19 hostile treatment by the RUC as opposed to simply being

20 a lawyer."

21 Again, was that the way she saw it, do you think,

22 based on the conversations you had with her

23 in October 1998?

24 A. You see that I start that sentence by saying "I believe

25 ..."




1 Q. Yes.

2 A. The prior sentence starts with "she felt". "I believe",

3 what I meant by that sentence was it was the point at

4 which Rosemary was more willing then to take the issue

5 of the intimidation of her clients and the intimidation

6 that she herself was experiencing into different fora as

7 an advocate on the issue of the intimidation of defence

8 lawyers.

9 And that was increasingly clear as she cooperated,

10 for example, by going to Washington to give testimony to

11 the Subcommittee, doing things that traditionally had

12 not been things that Rosemary felt very comfortable

13 doing.

14 Q. And you think, therefore, do you, that the appearance at

15 the Congressional Subcommittee was itself a sign that

16 things had changed for her?

17 A. Yes, but what had changed was that she felt increasingly

18 responsible for bringing this issue to light. There

19 were other defence lawyers who continued to believe that

20 it was simply an occupational hazard. There were others

21 for whom that higher profile would not have been

22 possible for various reasons, but Rosemary felt that in

23 the interests of justice and in particular because it

24 was affecting her ability to adequately represent her

25 clients, that she had to take an advocacy position on




1 this issue.

2 Q. And you think that led her to agree to give evidence to

3 the Congressional Subcommittee?

4 A. I think that. I also think that the visit of the

5 Special Rapporteur and the fact that Dr Param

6 Cumaraswamy had taken up her case also helped her to

7 understand that she had allies at that level who were

8 willing to help her and that what was missing when Human

9 Rights Watch says something or when

10 Amnesty International says something or when

11 Dr Param Cumaraswamy says something is her voice. And

12 she needed to give her voice and her support to our

13 efforts.

14 Q. It looks from your statement as though you and your

15 fellow NGO colleagues had concerns about her security;

16 is that right?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. Can you remember when you first discussed with those

19 colleagues your concerns about her personal security?

20 A. Concerns about her personal security within Human Rights

21 Watch would have arisen probably with the first -- the

22 publishing of the report.

23 The NGOs -- and again, understanding how Human

24 Rights Watch works, we produce these reports and then we

25 fully expect and encourage NGOs in those countries to




1 take those reports and do their own advocacy using our

2 documentation.

3 And so our contribution for quite a while with

4 respect to Rosemary's case was the chapter in this

5 report. And as we moved on with our policing works, we

6 did rely very heavily on Amnesty International and on --

7 in particular on the CAJ and British Irish Rights Watch

8 to advance Rosemary's case on the ground, because we

9 were not on the ground very much after that.

10 Q. So --

11 A. So in other words, it would have been a continuous

12 stream of emails. You will see in the chronologies that

13 have been produced that various NGOs met with various

14 actors in government or with -- you know, with

15 investigators, and our information would have fed into

16 that process even if Human Rights Watch wasn't actively

17 involved at that point.

18 Q. So, as I understand it then, in relation to the

19 involvement of NGOs in this issue, you agreed, did you,

20 that it would be the local ones, the ones in the UK, who

21 would take that question forward?

22 A. Yes, in large measure. Having said that, of course,

23 I met with Rosemary when I was on the ground. Some of

24 that information came back. It was put in various

25 different documents of Human Rights Watch, but yes, we




1 relied very, very heavily in particular on British Irish

2 Rights Watch. We considered Jane Winter to be the

3 pre-eminent expert on the issue of intimidation of

4 defence lawyers and so really left it to some extent in

5 terms of the direct advocacy with the local NGOs.

6 Q. Did you yourself discuss with Rosemary Nelson, this

7 question of her personal security?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And can you remember when you had your first such

10 conversation with her?

11 A. I believe that -- I believe it would have been in that

12 first telephone conversation that I had with her

13 in March of 1997 that we would have discussed, you

14 know -- very much in general. And you will note that

15 there is at the end of those notes a sentence about

16 having any faith in the RUC, and I think that the idea

17 that Rosemary would have sought security from the very

18 organisation from whence threats and intimidation were

19 coming and were directed at her was something that was

20 a huge dilemma for her and it was a huge dilemma for

21 those of us in the NGO community who were trying to

22 figure out how Rosemary could be protected.

23 Q. You described it in your statement as being a real bind,

24 this particular problem. Is that a fair description?

25 A. I would say that is a fair description.




1 Q. So it sounds then as though this was an issue that you

2 discussed with your NGO colleagues and with

3 Rosemary Nelson and were, as it were, searching around

4 to find an answer given the difficulty caused by the

5 bind of the RUC. Is that a fair summary?

6 A. Well, there are -- yes, searching around for an answer

7 and arriving at some -- some ways of possibly moving

8 forward, for example, by bringing the case of the

9 intimidation of defence lawyers to the UN, by engaging

10 legislators in the US, by publishing reports, by -- in

11 other words, giving a very high profile to the issue was

12 something that we determined could be done in light of

13 this bind at the micro level.

14 Q. So far as your organisation was concerned, being based

15 in the United States of America, that was the limit, was

16 it, that you thought you could do simply to raise the

17 profile of the issue and of her case in general?

18 A. We never would have done anything -- first of all, on

19 behalf of an individual client, an individual that we

20 were doing advocacy on behalf of, we never would have

21 done anything that they didn't specifically ask us to

22 do, right? And this bind, this dilemma that I know that

23 Rosemary felt, that she was at risk but that she

24 couldn't go to the police for security, was something

25 that we would not have acted upon without express -- an




1 express and very clear message from her.

2 Q. But did you --

3 A. I mean --

4 Q. -- discuss that dilemma with her on subsequent occasions

5 after the March 1997 conversation?

6 A. I can only assume that we did, but I do not have any --

7 I do not have any clear recollection of a specific

8 conversation where we continued to say what else can we

9 do? Can you go to the police? We had already

10 understood that she felt that she was vulnerable when it

11 came to the police.

12 Q. But did she ever express to you a view as to whether she

13 would be prepared to receive, for example, police

14 protection?

15 A. My recollection, again going back to that earlier

16 conversation, was that Rosemary had deep concerns about

17 going to the RUC for protection.

18 Q. Did those concerns take her to such a point that she

19 was, in your view, unwilling to go to the RUC?

20 A. There are several others who actually did go to the

21 Government with concerns about Rosemary's protection and

22 she -- Rosemary was very generous to people. She was

23 someone who wanted people to feel comfortable. I think

24 that she allowed people to advocate on her behalf, but

25 it is not my understanding that she herself ever would




1 have gone to the police specifically to ask for

2 protection.

3 Q. Do you think she would have accepted any form of police

4 advice on security?

5 A. Do I think she would have?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Do I personally think she would have?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. I think that would be very difficult for her, given her

10 concerns that the police were the origins of the threats

11 against her.

12 Q. Did you ever discuss this specific question with her?

13 A. I am sure I did, but I cannot tell you precisely what

14 date.

15 Q. You say in paragraph 27 of your statement that you don't

16 recall ever hearing specifically from Rosemary that she

17 wanted police protection?

18 A. That's correct. I do not ever recall her saying, "I

19 want police protection".

20 Q. In the light of your conversations with her, presumably

21 you would have been surprised, wouldn't you, to have

22 heard from her that she wanted police protection?

23 A. I would have been worried as well as surprised --

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. -- given the amount of information that we felt was




1 coming from her clients about RUC harassment and

2 intimidation, and that is why in fact we never advised

3 her to seek police protection.

4 We thought that our role as an international human

5 rights organisation, again, was to highlight her case in

6 the broader issue of lawyer intimidation at the UN and

7 in other fora.

8 Q. But you did, I think, didn't you, give her practical

9 suggestions as to her own security?

10 A. We felt it was very important for there to be a record,

11 whenever possible, that Rosemary should make complaints

12 to the ICPC, she should write to government, she should

13 in every way document what was occurring to her. And

14 this was -- this was something that we would have told

15 any person who was under threat: that they should engage

16 the process even though it was widely felt at the time

17 that the complaints process would not result in any

18 remedy for her, that it still made a lot of sense for

19 her in terms of the documenting for her to engage it to

20 the extent that she felt comfortable doing so.

21 And we did advise her to do that, to at every point

22 inform us about the threats and intimidation to the

23 extent that she felt comfortable to submit complaints to

24 the Government and to the police and to copy those then

25 to the United Nations to the Special Rapporteur.




1 Q. You say in paragraph 26 of your statement that in

2 relation to what you would have said to her in respect

3 of her personal security:

4 "This would have been checking with her as to

5 whether she was being careful."

6 Can you help us: what do you mean by that?

7 A. We would always have -- I mean, with any person that we

8 felt was under threat, we would have always expressed

9 concern for their personal safety, right? Being

10 careful, for example -- you know, after what happened on

11 the Garvaghy Road.

12 We would have wanted to ensure that in any situation

13 where there were going to be large groups gathered and

14 the police were going to be there, that Rosemary was not

15 navigating that crowd alone, for example. There would

16 have been any number of practical suggestions that we

17 would make to any person whose personal safety was

18 threatened, and concomitantly, we would have encouraged

19 her, as the document says, to keep a paper file of

20 everything, a paper record, file complaints, take notes,

21 et cetera.

22 Q. Can you think of any other practical advice that you

23 gave her?

24 A. Not at the moment.

25 Q. Thank you. You then deal with your statement with the




1 policing conference which took place in February 1999,

2 and the issue there that I want to discuss with you is

3 what happened when you had lunch with her on that

4 occasion at the end of February, and also with

5 Halya Gowan of Amnesty International.

6 You deal with it in your statement paragraph 28. It

7 sounds as though it was a light-hearted lunch. Is that

8 a fair description?

9 A. It started out that way, yes.

10 Q. And then in the middle of the lunch, Rosemary Nelson

11 produced a letter from her handbag?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Now, can you describe for us what the letter looked

14 like?

15 A. This letter she pulled out with one hand. I do not

16 recall there being an envelope for this letter. My

17 recollection is that it looked to me like a long

18 distance foldover paper flyer, you know, with the -- of

19 the blue paper that you fold in three, an all in one, so

20 to speak. That is what I recall.

21 Q. Can you remember anything about the writing, whether it

22 was typed or handwritten?

23 A. I don't recall.

24 Q. And can you remember anything about its content?

25 A. No, specifically because it was my full intent to follow




1 up with Rosemary as I had in the past, to ask her to fax

2 a copy of it to us, and it was two short weeks later

3 that she was killed.

4 Q. Had you seen this letter before?

5 A. I do not recall having seen that letter before.

6 Q. How confident are you that it was a different letter to

7 that which had been faxed at the end of July the

8 previous year?

9 A. I remember distinctly a conversation with Halya Gowan

10 where we agreed that it was a different letter. So my

11 distinct memory is that it was not the same letter.

12 It also occurred to me that there would be no reason

13 for Rosemary to have produced the same letter, because

14 we had already seen the other letter. I do know that

15 there is some -- there was some discussion at the time

16 that we were mistaken, but my recollection is that it

17 was indeed a different letter.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 So far as the conversation at the lunch was

20 concerned, you say that you laughed together about the

21 threats in the spirit of the event, of the occasion, the

22 light-hearted lunch. You will remember describing her

23 mood when she was with you, staying in your house or

24 your apartment, as being scared and worried. Did you

25 detect, when you met her in February 1999, another




1 change in her mood?

2 A. The -- I think it is important to understand the context

3 of this luncheon. It was in a very large room with many

4 people about. It was not an environment, I don't think,

5 that lent itself to intimate conversation, which is

6 another reason why notebooks weren't immediately slapped

7 on the table and notes weren't taken and there was a run

8 to a fax machine for that letter. It was not an

9 environment within which you would have felt comfortable

10 doing that.

11 And if that is the way that I felt, I would assume

12 that would have been the way that Rosemary felt, and

13 anything that she was feeling at that time, that would

14 not have been an appropriate time. The pulling out of

15 the letter was, in my mind, a classic defence mechanism.

16 We may have begun talking very informally about how she

17 was feeling, how she was doing. She may have produced

18 it. She did produce it and put it back into her bag and

19 we laughed, but it is a very dark kind of laughter. It

20 would not have necessarily been a very jovial occasion.

21 And again, because we would have followed up fairly

22 quickly upon that, there was no need to delve into it

23 any more at that point.

24 Q. In the section of your statement that deals with the

25 aftermath of her murder, which begins in paragraph 31 at




1 RNI-808-091 (displayed), you say in the fourth line:

2 "I think that there is a tremendous amount of guilt

3 within the NGO community for not having done more for

4 Rosemary, notwithstanding that Rosemary had at times

5 been so blase about the threats she received."

6 With hindsight, what more do you think the NGO

7 community could have done?

8 A. I think that you will note from some of the documents

9 from British Irish Rights Watch that -- and I said it

10 myself earlier in my testimony -- that various NGO

11 actors were acting on Rosemary's behalf but in

12 a somewhat diffuse manner, that it wasn't as coordinated

13 as it possibly could have been.

14 Having said that, it does not mean that lots of NGOs

15 and the UN, as an intergovernmental organisation --

16 there were lots of people who were actively doing work

17 on Rosemary's case. I had -- I would have hoped that it

18 would have been more coordinated.

19 I think the sense of guilt also comes from the

20 incredible sense of loss that we felt when Rosemary was

21 murdered, and I think that unfortunately has had a huge

22 impact on us. And it strikes me as perfectly normal

23 that we would feel that at gut level, that we would have

24 been able to do more.

25 So I would ask -- I would think that that statement




1 should be taken in the context of both a deep emotional

2 reaction to Rosemary's murder and a sense that maybe had

3 we done things differently, she would still be alive,

4 which I understand intellectually is probably not the

5 case but that is how I would -- that is how I understand

6 that statement.

7 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you to look, please, at an

8 article in the Irish Times. I think we can find a copy

9 at RNI-835-082 (displayed).

10 This is an article written by one of their

11 journalists very shortly after the murder, you see, just

12 some two days. And the passage I was hoping to find is

13 probably on the next page. Can we turn over, please, to

14 RNI-835-083 (displayed). Yes, it is the second full

15 paragraph. I am not sure you can see it. Can we

16 enlarge, please, the paragraph beginning:

17 "Dr Mowlam said ..."

18 Do you see that:

19 "Dr Mowlam said Human Rights Watch had written to

20 her on behalf of Mrs Nelson last October about threats

21 to her life and this had been passed on to the RUC, but

22 it was a question of low grade estimates."

23 Can I just ask you: do you remember writing to

24 Dr Mowlam in October 1998?

25 A. This was a question that has arisen when I was giving my




1 statement. We have not been able at Human Rights Watch

2 to locate such a letter. I don't know whether the

3 Inquiry has received that from the Government, but we

4 ourselves have not been able to locate it.

5 There are two possibilities. One is because Human

6 Rights Watch and the other NGOs were frequently confused

7 with each other, that she's referring to a letter of

8 a different organisation. Another possibility is that

9 we -- that there was a joint letter, that Human Rights

10 Watch may have joined with other NGOs, and I am sorry to

11 say that I cannot trace back this reference.

12 Q. Thank you. Those are the only questions I wanted to

13 ask, but I do want to end with this question, Ms Hall,

14 which is that if you have any matter you would like to

15 raise with the Inquiry panel, please would you do so

16 now.

17 A. Well, I have actually two questions. The first is,

18 because we have not been involved with the Inquiry very

19 much except with the giving of my statement, you will

20 note that in our report that Rosemary's case is under

21 a very specific subheading and it is under collusion.

22 And I would I would ask the Inquiry if there is an

23 intention -- I understand that right now you are

24 investigating threats that were made to Rosemary prior

25 to her death. Is there an intention to fully mine that




1 issue and then to recall NGO groups who have specific

2 expertise in this area at that time as well?

3 So that is just a question and a general concern I

4 think that we would have.

5 The second thing I want to say is: Rosemary Nelson

6 was a very valued colleague and her death was a terrible

7 shock for us, and while Rosemary was very strong and we

8 understood her to be strong and pragmatic and stoic, in

9 the end she was murdered and during her life she was

10 victimised. And I would just ask the Inquiry to

11 understand that Rosemary's first concern was always for

12 her family, her community and her clients and she

13 frequently deprioritised her own safety.

14 So I have been concerned in reading the transcripts

15 and in following some of the Inquiry's proceedings that

16 there is some impression that Rosemary herself had

17 a strategy, that she had a vendetta, that she was out to

18 make the police or others look bad. And I find this an

19 extraordinary way to cast her as a person and as

20 a professional, and so I would simply say that my

21 knowledge of Rosemary Nelson is that she was a victim of

22 threats and harassment, that the last thing on her mind

23 in terms of her time or her efforts was to wage

24 a campaign against anything except the injustice that

25 she felt that her own clients experienced in their daily




1 lives.

2 And that would conclude my comments.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Hall, thank you very much. We will

4 consider carefully everything you have said and thank

5 you for coming forward to give evidence to us. Thank

6 you.

7 A. You are most welcome.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: We will break off for 10 minutes.

9 (3.58 pm)

10 (Short break)

11 (4.20 pm)

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lally, can you hear me? Would you take

13 the oath or make affirm, please.

14 A. Yes, I can hear you.

15 MR GERALD LALLY (sworn)

16 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

17 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Lally, can you give us your full names,

18 please.

19 A. Gerald Patrick Lally.

20 Q. Thank you. Do you have in front of you a copy of the

21 statement you made to the Inquiry?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Can we have we have it on the screen, please, at

24 RNI-812-009 (displayed). Do we see your signature and

25 the date in May last year, 2007?




1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. Thank you very much. Now, Mr Lally, in your statement

3 you deal with a number of issues. The issues I am going

4 to cover with you in your evidence concern specifically

5 your contact with Rosemary Nelson herself.

6 You tell us that you answered an advertisement for

7 international observers on the Garvaghy Road in 1997 and

8 travelled to Northern Ireland in, I think, July that

9 year; is that right?

10 A. Basically, yes. It would either have been an

11 advertisement or a news story about the upcoming parade

12 situation. I did travel in July of 1997, yes.

13 Q. Thank you. I understand from paragraph 11 of your

14 statement that you stayed with Rosemary Nelson for

15 a couple of days, and thereafter you were billeted with

16 a local family on the Garvaghy Road for the duration of

17 the marching; is that right?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. I would like you to look --

20 A. I did return to Mrs Nelson's home on Monday of the next

21 week. (Inaudible).

22 Q. Thank you. Can we ask you to look, please, at a map.

23 It is at RNI-303-129 (displayed).

24 A. Right.

25 Q. This is a map showing the road, and you will see various




1 labels have been put in which I hope will prove to be

2 helpful when we go through the events that you deal with

3 in your statement.

4 So far as the starting point is concerned, in other

5 words the house where you were billeted, can you show us

6 by reference to the map where that was?

7 A. The house where I was?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. It would have been on the road that led from the church

10 at Drumcree to the intersection with the Garvaghy Road.

11 Q. Do you have the map --

12 A. That would be -- I do have the map in front of me. If

13 you look, it would be above -- between the -- where you

14 have "Site of Peace Camp" and "To Drumcree Church",

15 slightly above that, in that area.

16 Q. Thank you. In your statement you describe being woken

17 up at 2.30 early on the Sunday morning, that turning out

18 to be a false alarm and so you got up again, you say, at

19 about an hour later, about 3.30?

20 A. No, I never returned to bed.

21 Q. I see.

22 A. I stayed out on the street talking with a few other

23 gentlemen that evening from 2.30 to 3.30.

24 Q. Okay, thank you. Then you say in paragraph 8 that you

25 ran to the end of the road and saw there were a large




1 number of RUC officers gathering in full riot gear along

2 with units of the British Army and Land Rovers. So

3 again, by --

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. By reference to the map, can you tell us where you were

6 at that point?

7 A. I was at the intersection of the Garvaghy Road and the

8 road that comes from the Drumcree church, which would

9 be, I guess, a little bit to the left of the -- where

10 you have the mark "Site of Peace Camp", not the marking

11 itself, the arrow, but where you have the writing.

12 A little bit to the left of that.

13 Q. Just at the junction there?

14 A. In and around that area, yes. I was not, you know, a

15 stationary position the whole time.

16 Q. You say later in your statement at paragraph 10 that

17 when the residents realised that the march was going to

18 go ahead, many of them sat down in the road and linked

19 arms by way of a peaceful protest.

20 Again, I would like to ask you, please, where that

21 peaceful protest took place by reference to the map?

22 A. Okay. On the map there is a reference to an attempted

23 sit-down protest and first resistance to police, and

24 there is an arrow there. That is more or less where I

25 would remember it. I would possibly put it up 10 yards,




1 15 yards, but it is in that general area.

2 Q. In that general area, you think, maybe a little to the

3 left on the map; is that right?

4 A. Yes, I would say possibly a little bit to the left.

5 Q. And you were observing this protest, were you, from your

6 original position at the junction?

7 A. Well, I would move from time to time from the top of the

8 junction down along the Garvaghy Road, in the area where

9 the peace camp was, et cetera. I was not stationary.

10 Q. In relation to the specific incidents that you observed,

11 you say that you didn't see Rosemary Nelson until the

12 initial removal, the removal of the sit-down protesters

13 took place at what you think was about 3.30; is that

14 right?

15 A. It was about that time, yes. I did not see her at all

16 at that time.

17 Q. You didn't see her at that time?

18 A. I did not, no.

19 Q. Okay. So you then say later that morning you saw her on

20 a number of occasions. If we start with the removal at

21 3.30, can you estimate when it was that you first

22 saw her?

23 A. It is hard to place an hour and minute on it, but it

24 would have been after it had become light, somewhere --

25 possibly 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock area, somewhere around




1 then.

2 Q. So it had begun to get light, had it?

3 A. Yes, it had.

4 Q. Was it completely light?

5 A. When I saw her? I would think so.

6 Q. Yes. It was a summer morning and the sun was up and it

7 was already light; is that right?

8 A. I would believe so, yes.

9 Q. And is it at that point that you saw the incident in

10 relation to the residents who wanted to attend mass?

11 A. Yes. I saw Rosemary shortly before the incident took

12 place.

13 Q. Right. Where was she on the map?

14 A. If you look on the map, where you have the designation

15 "Site of Peace Camp", right above that notation there

16 are houses on both sides and an empty space. I would

17 say -- I believe there is a letter "ESS", if you can see

18 it there. I believe it was in there that she met up

19 with this group of residents who were attempting to go

20 to mass. She spoke to them and then afterwards from

21 there went to the -- meet with the RUC.

22 Q. Right. So just to be clear, so that we are both looking

23 at the same place, the ESS letters you have identified

24 is just above the label "Site of Peace Camp", yes? It

25 is being highlighted for us on the map, do you see, in




1 yellow?

2 A. Yes, correct.

3 Q. So not on the road itself but just off it in a gap

4 between some houses?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Thank you. What was she doing when you first saw her

7 there?

8 A. She was conversing with the group of residents who

9 wished to go to mass.

10 Q. How far were you away from her?

11 A. I was right in the midst of it, I believe.

12 Q. You were right there?

13 A. I was right there, yes, I was.

14 Q. And from that point on, I think you said that having

15 spoken to the residents she then went towards the

16 police; is that right?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Where were the police that you are referring to?

19 A. They would have been on the Garvaghy Road.

20 Q. So, again, can you help us with the map?

21 A. She would have basically taken the straightest route

22 from where we were at ESS to the road.

23 Q. Right. And where were the police?

24 A. The police were lined up all up and down the road.

25 Q. Right. And what --




1 A. She would have went to the group closest to her, as she

2 walked there.

3 Q. And again, can you help us with the map: Where was that

4 group, the group closest to her?

5 A. Yes, it would be around -- more or less below where it

6 says "Site L", if you go all the way out to the road and

7 directly under "Site" it would be somewhere in that

8 area.

9 Q. So just about that junction?

10 A. Below the junction, yes.

11 Q. And what did you see?

12 A. She went up to the group of RUC officers. She spoke to

13 them, identified herself as the attorney for the

14 Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition. Said that she had

15 a group of people who wished to attend mass at the

16 St John's Chapel, which is further on up the road, and

17 they were being prevented from doing so by the police

18 officers.

19 Q. What response did she get?

20 A. She was cursed at, she was pushed around, basically told

21 they weren't going to do anything about it.

22 Q. Can I just ask you: where were you when this took place?

23 A. I was basically within five or ten feet of her probably,

24 the back of her.

25 Q. So you were near the junction yourself, were you?




1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And did you have an uninterrupted view of what was

3 happening?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you say it is at that point, do you, that she was

6 abused?

7 A. Yes, that is correct.

8 Q. Right. Can I ask you to look at your witness statement,

9 please, and it is at RNI-812-013 (displayed).

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Paragraph 15. Do you see in the second sentence in

12 relation to this first incident, you say:

13 "I was not with Rosemary when this incident took

14 place, but I was within earshot and could clearly hear

15 what she and the RUC were saying"?

16 A. Right.

17 Q. So can I just ask you: were you with her at the time of

18 the first incident or not?

19 A. It depends how you define with, but when I said I was

20 not with her, I meant I was not standing right next to

21 her.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. I was behind her.

24 Q. How far behind?

25 A. Five or ten feet.




1 Q. So that you could both see and hear, is that what you

2 are saying?

3 A. Yes, that is correct.

4 Q. Yes. And were there any people between you and her?

5 A. I don't recall any, no.

6 Q. Presumably there were lots and lots of people milling

7 around on the road at that time?

8 A. Not on the road, no. By that time in the morning the

9 police had cleared everyone off the road. I believe

10 they were in complete control of the road and that they

11 had Land Rovers lined up, up and down both sides of the

12 Garvaghy Road, the junction all the way down to the

13 bottom. So there were probably no people milling on the

14 road itself except military and law enforcement people.

15 Q. So the situation was, at least in relative terms, calm,

16 calmer than it had been. Can I ask you: you say that

17 she was abused. When you looked at her and you saw the

18 police officers, how many were close up to her?

19 A. I would estimate that in that grouping there were

20 probably 10 or 12.

21 Q. And how were they dressed?

22 A. Full riot gear.

23 Q. With helmets?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what else were they carrying?




1 A. I believe they all had -- I am not sure of the exact

2 term, but the shields that they carry in these

3 situations.

4 Q. In your statement, you say in paragraph 58 at the end of

5 it, at RNI-812-026 (displayed), in relation to the two

6 incidents that in the first incident, the one you have

7 just described to us, Rosemary, as you put it:

8 "Rosemary Nelson, was subjected to verbal abuse, but

9 it was not until the second incident that I witnessed

10 further down the Garvaghy Road that I saw Rosemary being

11 pushed and shoved."

12 Is that still your recollection giving evidence

13 today?

14 A. No, I would think that I was incorrect when I gave this

15 statement on May 21st. In preparing for coming here

16 today, I went through some old files and I came across

17 a letter that I had written to a Superintendent Maxwell

18 in January of 1998 and I also reviewed my statement that

19 the RUC took from me in November of 1999. And from both

20 of those, I would conclude that she was physically

21 abused on that first occasion.

22 Q. Let us try and deal with that. We will come to your

23 other statements in a minute.

24 If you go back to the main part of your statement

25 where you deal with this, which is paragraph 13,




1 RNI-812-013 (displayed), there what you describe is

2 indeed abuse, but you do not suggest in this statement

3 that she was pushed or shoved or otherwise assaulted at

4 this stage. So are you now saying that you think that

5 recollection is incorrect?

6 A. Yes, I have no present picture in my mind today of

7 physical abuse at that point, but having read -- yes, my

8 prior statement from 1998 and the letter I wrote

9 in January of that year, I would amend that, yes.

10 Q. Just working through what you say in your more recent

11 inquiry statement before we go back to the other

12 material, in 14, you say that:

13 "She was treated like dirt. When she put her case

14 forward, they brushed her off."

15 How did that manifest itself to you as an observer?

16 A. I am not exactly sure what the question means, but they

17 gave her no relief. You got the impression that they

18 did not want to deal with her, that they were not

19 interested in the concerns that she had for her clients,

20 that they had no interest in whether or not these people

21 should be allowed to attend their church services,

22 et cetera.

23 Q. You also say that it was obvious to you that all of the

24 RUC, the 10 or 12, I assume you mean, in attendance were

25 fully aware of who Rosemary was before she identified




1 herself. How could you tell that?

2 A. That was just a conclusion on my part. I believe that

3 everyone seemed to be familiar with who she was

4 throughout the day.

5 Q. Did you hear them on that occasion use her name?

6 A. I did not, no.

7 Q. No. So that is an inference that you have drawn, is it?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. The group is of 10 or 12 police officers, you have told

10 us. In relation to the abuse that you mention in

11 paragraph 13, was that abuse uttered by all of them or

12 some of them and, if so, can you say how many?

13 A. It was not by all of them, no. It would have been

14 a few -- separate verbal abuse from physical abuse. It

15 would have been a couple of people would have uttered

16 the term "Fenian bitch". As far as any physical abuse,

17 it would be the use of shields, pushing against her.

18 Q. So she came up --

19 A. One or two people, yes.

20 Q. So a couple of people uttering abuse; is that right?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And the physical part of the incident came when she

23 approached the line -- is that right? -- and they --

24 A. She was at the line the whole time while this

25 conversation was going on, yes.




1 Q. Right. And how were the shields used?

2 A. The individual officers would have, like, kind of lifted

3 them up and pushed them forward into her.

4 Q. As you were witnessing this, was there anybody else next

5 to you, any people you knew standing near you also

6 observing what was going on?

7 A. I don't recall anyone that I knew. There were people

8 all around. I mentioned before that the road was clear,

9 but going back from the road there were a substantial

10 number of people. But I cannot tell you today that

11 I remember any specific individual being there.

12 Q. Can we look, please, at some of your earlier statements,

13 and the first is at RNI-302-149 (displayed).

14 This is the statement you tell us, I think in your

15 own witness statement in this Inquiry, that you wrote at

16 the time; in other words, on your return, I think, to

17 Rosemary Nelson's house after the marching. Do you

18 remember that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Why did you make it?

21 A. The statement?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. I was appalled at what I had seen, at the actions of the

24 RUC both in removing the protesters from the road and

25 then the treatment of Rosemary Nelson. And then I was




1 further quite disturbed when I'd seen newspaper --

2 excuse me, not newspaper, television reports by

3 Mo Mowlam, the then Secretary of State, who went on

4 television to tell the world that the reason for the

5 violent removal of the protesters was that it was in

6 response to Nationalist violence.

7 And as I say in the statement, I was there from the

8 very beginning of the incident. There was no

9 Nationalist violence, and so the response of the RUC was

10 not a response to Nationalist violence whatsoever. And

11 that was why I was provoked into writing the letter --

12 the statement, excuse me.

13 Q. Looking through the statement now, as I say, it starts

14 at RNI-302-149. So far as we are concerned, the

15 relevant passage is at RNI-302-152. Can you look at

16 that, please (displayed).

17 This is the penultimate paragraph of the statement,

18 and I think I am right in saying it is the only part

19 that concerns Rosemary Nelson herself?

20 A. I believe that is correct.

21 Q. And you say in the second line:

22 "On numerous occasions from the beginning of this

23 armed invasion at 3.30 to its conclusion about 11 hours

24 later, Mrs Nelson attempted to resolve matters between

25 the residents and the government forces. I importantly




1 witnessed many of these exchanges. To say that

2 Mrs Nelson was not treated professionally would be

3 a joke if this matter was not as serious as it is. To

4 put it succinctly, she was generally referred to as a

5 'Fenian bitch', and was threatened and received many

6 bruises in attempting to professionally discharge her

7 obligations as legal representative to the community."

8 This was a statement you made some few days after

9 the events?

10 A. About two days, yes.

11 Q. It contains a much more general description of what has

12 happened, doesn't it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. It doesn't contain, for example, a description of how

15 she came by the bruises?

16 A. No, it does not.

17 Q. And it suggests that she was generally referred to as

18 a Fenian bitch rather than that having happened in

19 particular incidents. Is that a fair comment?

20 A. Yes, but what I meant by generally was not only what

21 I heard but what was communicated to me by other

22 observers and also by Rosemary herself.

23 Q. So you think that this is a summary, is it, of your own

24 observations and things passed on to you by other

25 people?




1 A. Yes, definitely.

2 Q. So far as other contemporaneous material is concerned,

3 at RNI-302-147 (displayed) we can see a version of this

4 statement which went on to the web, I think, went on to

5 the Internet, didn't it? Do you see it at the top of

6 the page?

7 A. Okay, yes, I do.

8 Q. And if we turn over to RNI-302-148 (displayed), in fact

9 the relevant section, relevant to us at any rate, has

10 been deleted, hasn't it? There is no reference here to

11 the Rosemary Nelson assault at all; is that right?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. What was the purpose for which this statement was put on

14 the Internet?

15 A. I have no idea.

16 Q. You do not know?

17 A. I don't believe I did that.

18 Q. You don't think you did?

19 A. No.

20 Q. You do not think your consent was asked to put it on the

21 Internet?

22 A. It could have been. I have no recollection at this

23 time.

24 Q. When you returned to the United States of America, you

25 made a report to the Law Society that you belong to and




1 we can see that at RNI-302-153 (displayed). Do you have

2 that?

3 A. Just a second.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 A. Okay, I think I have another copy of it.

6 Q. Do you see it begins:

7 "During the first two weeks ..."?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In this account, in the third paragraph do you see there

10 is a reference to 3.30 am, the start of the security

11 forces' involvement, and you give details of violence,

12 of people being clubbed, shot in the neck and, indeed,

13 you refer to the refusal to the residents of permission

14 to go to mass. Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, I do.

16 Q. In this statement you make no reference whatever, do

17 you, to the Rosemary Nelson incidents that you have

18 described to us?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Why was that?

21 A. I believe, when I was asked to draw up this report, I

22 was requested that I make it very brief.

23 Q. But you had time to mention --

24 A. So I made a very condensed version of what I had done in

25 other reports.




1 Q. Indeed. But you had time, didn't you, in this third

2 paragraph to mention other incidents of violence and

3 indeed to mention the refusal to let the residents go to

4 mass. Why was it that you didn't mention those

5 involving Rosemary Nelson?

6 A. I think -- yes, at the time it was probably my opinion,

7 and I believe it was also Rosemary Nelson's opinion,

8 that the main focus of what happened on that day and in

9 other parades was the violence against the residents and

10 that the main focus both for my part and from her part

11 was not on the treatment that she received.

12 Q. Can we look now at the statement you made to the

13 investigating officers in New York when they came to

14 visit you, and I think the statement is at RNI-302-155

15 (displayed).

16 A. I have that.

17 Q. Thank you. This is a longer statement and you set out

18 the chronology of events beginning on that page,

19 RNI-302-155 (displayed), at 2.30 am, and then, so far as

20 we are concerned, coming to the relevant parts at

21 RNI-302-157 (displayed).

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The first thing I wanted to draw to your attention is

24 this. If you look about six lines down, there is

25 a sentence beginning:




1 "After this, I was kept in a section of the

2 Garvaghy Road and was not able to move about the full

3 length of the road."

4 Do you see that?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. I am aware that there were further confrontations

7 further down the Garvaghy Road where it flattens out

8 more, but I was not in a position to witness this at

9 close hand."

10 In the next sentence, you say:

11 "In relation to the confrontations between

12 Mrs Nelson and the police, I saw some from afar but one

13 I witnessed closely was near the junction."

14 And that is the point you showed us on the map, I

15 think, isn't it?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. You can't recall whether there was anyone else with

18 Mrs Nelson, and there you mention the elderly residents

19 and that Mrs Nelson went up to speak to the commanding

20 officer and that you heard the words "Fenian bitch" and

21 there you say she was pushed about and manhandled.

22 I think it is right, isn't it, that at the time you

23 were being interviewed by the Inquiry lawyers, you had

24 access to that witness statement made in November 1999;

25 is that right?




1 A. Yes. I believe so.

2 Q. And I assume in your statement to the Inquiry you were

3 doing what you could to set down what you remembered of

4 the incidents?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. So the question that arises obviously is why it was in

7 your Inquiry statement that you said the first incident

8 was limited to abuse and that the assault you say you

9 witnessed took place only in the second incident?

10 A. I think I tried to explain that before. At the time of

11 my interview by the Inquiry staff, and even today,

12 I don't actually have a picture in my mind of the

13 physical abuse at that particular time. But having

14 reviewed the statement that I made to the RUC, and even

15 more so my letter to Superintendent Maxwell, that would

16 lead me to believe that there was physical abuse at that

17 point as they both are much more in time with the actual

18 incident.

19 Q. So you'd prefer, as it were, to trust your memory much

20 nearer the time?

21 A. I think most people would, yes.

22 Q. Yes. While we are looking at this statement, can I ask

23 you to look at the next section a bit, please. You say

24 a little further down:

25 "I also saw other occasions where Mrs Nelson was




1 attempting to speak to police officers. Mrs Nelson

2 would approach a police line and I could see her at

3 various times being pushed back, sometimes by the riot

4 shields the officers were carrying."

5 So it looks in this statement as though you are

6 referring there to a number of occasions on which

7 shields were used against her to push her back; is that

8 right?

9 A. That would be what the statement says, yes.

10 Q. But can you now help us with any actual recollection of

11 how many such occasions there were?

12 A. Now, 11 years later, no.

13 Q. No.

14 A. We are talking about the first incident. There was the

15 second incident. Were there others? Probably, but in

16 2008, no, I do not have a picture of others in my mind.

17 Q. So far as the second incident is concerned, you describe

18 that, in your Inquiry statement at any rate, in

19 paragraph 18 at RNI-812-015 (displayed), and you say it

20 took place later in the morning.

21 Now, do you see that paragraph?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. I am afraid I am going to ask you to look back at the

24 map. I am sorry about this, but we need to try and work

25 out where all these things took place, and the map is at




1 RNI-303-129 (displayed).

2 You describe it in your statement as being a short

3 way down the road. Where on the map did this second

4 incident take place?

5 A. It would be probably -- somewhat below where you have --

6 the arrow pointing for the site of the peace camp, if

7 you follow that to the road and then go down to the

8 right somewhere.

9 Q. So might it be in the little junction or road under the

10 words "Ballyoran Park"?

11 A. It could be in that area, yes.

12 Q. On that side of the road?

13 A. Yes, it would have been on that side of the road.

14 I really couldn't see -- I could see a little bit, but

15 I really couldn't see that all that much on the other

16 side of the road because we were penned in.

17 Q. You were penned in, as you explained. But from where

18 you were, what could you actually see?

19 A. Could you repeat that, please?

20 Q. From where you were, what could you actually see?

21 A. Well, I was at the top of the Garvaghy Road and you

22 could move freely within your own cordoned-off area. So

23 I could move around up at the top of the road and move

24 down somewhat.

25 I could see, you know, anything up near the top of




1 the road, certainly on my side of the road. You could

2 see -- across the road you could see all vehicles were

3 lined up on both sides of the road. You could see that

4 there were people behind the vehicles on the other side

5 of the road. You could see down the road for a good

6 distance, yes.

7 You couldn't -- yes, the vehicles were lined up next

8 to the kerb and I believe the RUC would have been right

9 in front of them. But aside from that, you had

10 basically an open view going down the road as far as an

11 eye could see.

12 Q. And in this particular incident, what did you see?

13 A. As I said, I was not that close, but once again, it

14 was -- it would appear to be that Mrs Nelson was going

15 up to the police with some kind of complaint about what

16 was happening that day or at that particular moment of

17 the day and trying to gain some relief for her clients.

18 Q. How far away were you, roughly?

19 A. I don't know at this point in time. It was not close

20 enough to hear what was going on. I wasn't able to

21 observe some of what would happen.

22 Q. And if the first incident you have described was, I

23 think you said, 7.30 or 8, what time do you think this

24 incident took place?

25 A. Once again I can't be very clear on that, but probably




1 about an hour later maybe.

2 Q. And am I right to infer from what you have just said

3 that for this incident you were out of earshot?

4 A. I was out of earshot, that is correct.

5 Q. So when you say in your statement at paragraph 18 there

6 appeared to be a lot of abuse, that is not something you

7 could yourself hear?

8 A. That is correct. You could see body language, for

9 example, but I could not hear actual words, no.

10 Q. You can see what was going on, but not hear what was

11 being said; is that right?

12 A. Right. That is right.

13 Q. So what did you see?

14 A. Mrs Nelson was talking to the RUC. There was some kind

15 of response that one would not consider to be a friendly

16 response and then I believe she was pushed and shoved

17 with the riot shields.

18 Q. Again, can I ask you: how many police officers were

19 involved?

20 A. Probably in and around the same number. Basically in

21 small groups at various locations down the road.

22 Q. And were they dressed in the same way as you described

23 earlier?

24 A. Yes, they were.

25 Q. So far as this incident is concerned, you say in your




1 statement to the Inquiry that you saw bruising, you saw

2 her bruising later in the same day; is that right?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. How did you come to see the bruising?

5 A. I believe at the time I was in the community centre,

6 which was kind of a headquarters for observers and other

7 people, and conversation ensued between myself and

8 Rosemary and probably others that were there, and she

9 demonstrated the bruises. She rolled up the sleeves on

10 her shirt on her arms, indicating bruising on both arms

11 and, I believe, one or both shoulders. At least one

12 shoulder; I am not sure about the second.

13 Q. Did she show you the bruising on both her arms? Is that

14 what you are saying?

15 A. Yes, that is correct.

16 Q. Did she show you the bruising on her shoulder?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Were other people present?

19 A. I believe so.

20 Q. And this took place, you say, in the community centre,

21 did it?

22 A. That is my recollection, yes.

23 Q. And at what time of the day was this?

24 A. That, I don't know. The way things proceeded, after the

25 removals there was an open air mass out in the middle of




1 the estate, where there were no houses. The priest

2 actually came in from the chapel and set up a temporary

3 altar in the field and we were surrounded by tanks and

4 they said a mass there. I don't know exactly what time

5 that would have been, but probably some time in the

6 morning, 10, 11 o'clock, maybe. And I think -- you

7 know -- went down to the community centre after the mass

8 and that may have been the time that I saw the bruises.

9 If not, it would have been later in the day.

10 I did go back to the house where I was staying for

11 a while and actually saw the parade pass. The house I

12 was staying in was right on the route from the church,

13 and after that I would have gone back down to the

14 community centre and it might have been at that time

15 that I saw the bruising.

16 Q. And can you describe the bruising to us, please?

17 A. As black and blue marks on the arms and shoulder.

18 Q. Did you discuss with her whether she ought to get some

19 medical attention for those injuries?

20 A. I don't recall at this time. I imagine myself and

21 probably a lot of other people probably did mention

22 that, but I do not have any present recollection of

23 that.

24 Q. You say in your statement in paragraph 19:

25 "I understand from speaking to other people and




1 Rosemary herself that there were several incidents of

2 confrontation between Rosemary and the security services

3 that day. However, I only witnessed the two incidents

4 described above."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. And again, so that we can be clear about this, that is

8 your evidence, is it: that you witnessed two incidents

9 on this day in July 1997 involving Rosemary Nelson?

10 A. As best I could remember today, yes.

11 Q. So if we go back to your statement in November 1999, at

12 RNI-302-157 (displayed), where you say at the bottom of

13 the page:

14 "I also saw other occasions ..."

15 When you explained to me a little earlier that that

16 was based on information given to you by other people,

17 is that the same point that you are making in your

18 witness statement; in other words, that you spoke to

19 others and to her and heard that there were several

20 incidents of confrontation that day?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Yes. You said earlier that your recollection was

23 obviously clearer in November 1999 than it is today.

24 Can I ask you to look, please, at your statement at

25 RNI-302-157 (displayed). I may be wrong about this, but




1 I can't see any reference in it to her showing you her

2 bruising later that day?

3 A. (Pause).

4 Q. I don't think there is any reference to it in this

5 statement, is there?

6 A. I don't see any on that page.

7 Q. Can you think of any reason why you might have left that

8 out?

9 A. I may not have been asked a question by the RUC. I

10 think the statement that you are referring to is myself

11 answering questions posed by the RUC rather than my

12 preparing a statement.

13 Q. But presumably this was a relevant piece of information,

14 wasn't it: that you had actually seen the effects of the

15 conduct that you had witnessed?

16 A. As I say, I was just responding to questions. As

17 I mentioned earlier, I did come across a letter that I

18 had written to Superintendent Maxwell on January 15th of

19 1998 which precedes this statement by quite a bit and is

20 probably the closest in time to the actual happening,

21 other than the July 7th statement. And in that letter

22 to Superintendent Maxwell -- if I can find it --

23 Q. Can I get it up on the screen for everybody here? It is

24 RNI-103-007.505 (displayed).

25 Is that the letter you are talking about?




1 A. Yes. In that, on the second page, I believe --

2 Q. RNI-103-007.506.

3 A. -- I say that she was treated discourteously by

4 officers, pushed and shoved to a point where she had

5 bruises on her body, et cetera. So I do refer to it

6 back in the letter of January 15th 1998.

7 Q. We are rather catching up with you here. Can you just

8 give us a moment?

9 A. Sure.

10 Q. Thank you. So it is the bit at the end of this page, is

11 it:

12 "She was treated discourteously by your officers,

13 pushed and shoved to the point where she has bruises on

14 her body and generally referred to as a 'Fenian bitch'"?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. And this is a letter you wrote in January the previous

17 year?

18 A. January of 1998, yes.

19 Q. Can you remember the circumstances which led you to

20 write it?

21 A. Yes, pretty much laid out in the first paragraph. There

22 must have been correspondence between an attorney that

23 I knew by the name of Edmund Lynch and

24 Superintendent Maxwell. Superintendent Maxwell must

25 have replied to something that Mr Lynch sent to him and




1 Mr Lynch not only replied to that, but also asked me to

2 send a letter to Superintendent Maxwell with my comments

3 on Superintendent Maxwell's (inaudible).

4 Q. During the course of the day on 6th July, did you

5 discuss these incidents with Rosemary Nelson herself?

6 A. In a general way, yes.

7 Q. But it sounds as though there wasn't any detailed

8 discussion between you about what had happened to her;

9 is that right?

10 A. No, I think, as I said before, the main consideration of

11 pretty much everyone involved -- myself, Rosemary and

12 others -- was what had happened on the road that day

13 between the RUC, the military and the members of the

14 community, and it was not focused on whatever had

15 happened to Rosemary.

16 Rosemary was worried more about the other people

17 than she was about herself.

18 Q. Now --

19 A. And that was basically the concern of most of the people

20 there at that time.

21 Q. In paragraph 22 of your statement, you say that you

22 specifically remember speaking to her -- this is

23 RNI-812-016 (displayed) -- on one occasion when she was

24 extremely distressed. But as I understand it, the cause

25 of her upset was not her own experiences or injuries but




1 what had happened to other people; is that right?

2 A. Yes, and in addition, the way events transpired. My

3 understanding is that Mrs Nelson was in contact and

4 negotiations with the Secretary of State for quite

5 a while preceding the events of July as to whether or

6 not there would be a parade. Apparently, from what I

7 understand, Mrs Nelson was guaranteed by Mo Mowlam that

8 she would advise Mrs Nelson of the decision as soon as

9 it had been made. And obviously, when the RUC and the

10 military arrived at 3.30 in the morning, it was quite

11 obvious that Mo Mowlam had not kept her promise to

12 Rosemary and Rosemary was very, very upset about that,

13 that she had been led down the road by the official of

14 the Government --

15 Q. Just returning to -- and also -- sorry?

16 A. -- and also by the physical injuries that the people

17 suffered that day in the removals.

18 Q. But she wasn't distressed by her own --

19 A. She was not. Obviously there was some concern, but it

20 was of a minor part compared to all the other things

21 that had happened that day.

22 Q. So she was treating what happened to her as minor; is

23 that right?

24 A. Compared to what else had transpired that day, yes.

25 Q. In what circumstances then did she come to show you the




1 bruising on her body?

2 A. I don't know that she was just showing me, but I think

3 there were probably others in and around the area at the

4 time. It was just -- well, a minor part of the day. It

5 still was a part of the day.

6 So there was a conversation about the various things

7 that she had been involved in, and in the course of that

8 I believe she showed us the bruising.

9 I want to emphasise that she was more concerned with

10 the other things, but this was not totally ignored

11 either.

12 Q. Thank you. So far as your first statement is concerned,

13 which we have looked at already, I just wanted to ask

14 you this: you tell us in your witness statement at

15 paragraph 23 that you took notes during your visit in

16 1997 and that, unfortunately, you have lost the notes

17 and so we are not able to rely on them. But can I take

18 it it was from those notes that you made your first

19 statement, which you mention in paragraph 25, as soon as

20 you got back to Rosemary Nelson's house?

21 A. I believe so. Obviously it was only a day or two since

22 it had happened, my memory at that point, whether I had

23 notes or not.

24 Q. And you say in paragraph 28 at RNI-812-018 (displayed)

25 that you had your notes, the statement, typed up by




1 secretaries in Rosemary Nelson's office, and presumably

2 you were satisfied with what they had typed and that

3 became that first statement that we saw a little while

4 ago. Can I ask you --

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. -- why did you prepare that statement?

7 A. I think I already answered that question. I was

8 appalled by the incident, by the level of violence which

9 I thought was completely unnecessary. The parade, if

10 you want to call it that, or the return of the parade

11 was not scheduled until 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

12 This was 3.30 in the morning. They had nine and a half

13 hours for a highly trained police force and military to

14 take protesters off the road in a much more unintrusive

15 manner than they did, instead of going in swinging

16 batons, shooting plastic bullets without warning.

17 From my own experience of what I have seen

18 throughout the world, most times when you have crowds

19 blocking an area and officials want them removed, there

20 is at least a warning given beforehand that they will be

21 forcibly removed if they don't remove themselves. That

22 was not done here. They just waded in without warning.

23 I was upset at that. I was upset about the

24 treatment that I did see of Rosemary. I saw many people

25 down at the community centre with their heads split




1 open. I interviewed one nurse who -- this was later

2 that afternoon at the parade -- who was shot by

3 a plastic bullet in the leg. She had already been to

4 hospital and been released and she was on crutches with

5 a cast on, and she identified herself to the RUC, she

6 actually told me, as a student nurse going to help

7 someone else and she was shot by a plastic bullet.

8 The whole panoply of events that occurred that day:

9 the fact that the residents had not been told, when they

10 had been promised that they could -- they would be told

11 beforehand whether there was to be a parade or not, the

12 incident with the people not being allowed to go to

13 church. Why do you prevent one group of people from

14 professing their faith just in the name of what we will

15 call the return of a parade.

16 That was my motivation, sir.

17 Q. I can well understand those feelings would prompt you to

18 want to write down and set out your experience. But

19 what did you intend to do with the statement?

20 A. Personally? I was hoping that it would somehow or other

21 be circulated as widely as possible so as to certainly

22 give a lie to the assertions that the violence committed

23 by the authorities was in response to Nationalist

24 violence.

25 As I said -- I said then and have said many times




1 since and will say right now, and will continue to say

2 it until I die -- there was no Nationalist violence

3 before that initial removal. And I wanted that -- you

4 know, to be circulated as widely as possible so that the

5 impression created by the media of Nationalist violence

6 would be dispelled.

7 Q. You see, you say in your statement that it was

8 Rosemary Nelson herself who was keen for you to put

9 a statement together of what you had seen over the

10 weekend. Do you think that might have been the reason

11 you drafted your statement?

12 A. It was not the main reason. I would say, yes, she

13 certainly agreed that a statement should be put

14 together, and this is another example actually of

15 answering questions that are asked. I would never use

16 the phrase that someone was "keen" on something. That

17 is, I believe, a phrase that is used in the UK. It is

18 not used much over here.

19 Q. But whether "keen" is the right word or not, did she

20 tell you that she would like you to prepare a witness

21 statement about these events?

22 A. She certainly concurred with my decision to write

23 a statement, yes.

24 Q. Right. In paragraph 36 of your statement, you tell us

25 more generally about the discussions you had with her




1 and about her dealings with the police, and you say in

2 the course of that paragraph that she told you she had

3 received derogatory remarks from RUC officers. Do you

4 mean by that that RUC officers had made derogatory

5 remarks to her?

6 A. That was my understanding of what she had told me, yes.

7 Q. Can you, beyond what you go on to set out in the

8 paragraph here, remember any further details of

9 incidents of that kind?

10 A. No, it was basically two (inaudible): one was the

11 comments about her face, which they attributed falsely,

12 obviously, to her being an IRA bomber; and the second

13 grouping of complaints would be things that she had

14 gotten back from her clients basically to the effect

15 that she was not going to be around very long, that she

16 will not be here to represent you when your case comes

17 up, things of that nature.

18 Q. And you then go on to describe what she said to you

19 about, if I can put it this way, indirect threats,

20 ie threats made to her via her clients. Do you see,

21 this is paragraph 37?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did she tell you what she had done about all these

24 threats?

25 A. I don't know if she told me at that time. Somewhere




1 along the whole proceeding I had become aware that she,

2 I believe, has filed complaints with the authorities but

3 I could not tell you when I first learned of that.

4 Q. But that wasn't something you advised her to do?

5 A. It may have come up in conversation, but I cannot recall

6 it at this time. I suspect they probably did, but you

7 know -- and I think anyone who had met with her probably

8 would, but I don't actually recall it.

9 Q. Can I ask you one more question about the moment when,

10 in the community centre, she showed you the bruising.

11 You said, I think, that you weren't alone in being shown

12 the bruising. Can you remember who was with you on that

13 occasion?

14 A. No, I cannot. The community centre was full of people

15 that day.

16 Q. In paragraph 48 of your statement at RNI-812-023

17 (displayed), you say in the first three lines that she

18 didn't tell you of active discussion with the

19 authorities, but you do remember her telling you at some

20 point there were discussions with various unidentified

21 people about the possibility of beefing up security on

22 her house.

23 Now, can you help us with any more detail about

24 that? For instance, who it was she was talking to about

25 this possibility?




1 A. No, I cannot. I don't know at this point.

2 Q. No. Those are the only questions I want to ask you,

3 Mr Lally, but what I say to all witnesses at the end of

4 questioning is that if there is any further matter that

5 you would like to raise with the Inquiry, then this is

6 your opportunity to do so.

7 A. No, I don't think so. I think we have covered most of

8 everything, and I would like to thank you for giving me

9 the opportunity to appear before the Inquiry.

10 Q. Thank you very much.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lally, we thank you for making yourself

12 available to give evidence and thank you for doing so.

13 A. You are welcome.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn until 9.15 tomorrow.

15 (5.24 pm)

16 (The Inquiry adjourned until 9.15 am the following day)












1 I N D E X

MS JANE WINTER (continued) ....................... 1
Questions by MR PHILLIPS (continued) ......... 1
DATO' PARAM CUMARASWAMY (affirmed) ............... 39
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 39
MS JULIA HALL (sworn) ............................ 96
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 96
MR GERALD LALLY (sworn) .......................... 156
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 156