Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 10th June 2008, day 32

Click here to download the LiveNote version
















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

on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
commencing at 10.15 am

Day 32









1 Tuesday 10th June 2008

2 (10.15 am)


4 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

5 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Lynch, can you give us your full names,

6 please.

7 A. Edmund Eugene Lynch.

8 Q. Thank you. Do you have a copy of your statement to the

9 Inquiry in front of you?

10 A. I do.

11 Q. Can we have it up on the screen, please, at RNI-812-064

12 (displayed)? If we turn over, please, to RNI-812-110,

13 do we see your signature there and the date of

14 31st October 2007?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Mr Lynch, can I ask you, first of all, how long have you

17 practised as an attorney?

18 A. I was admitted in the District of Colombia in 1968 and

19 in the State of New Jersey in 1969.

20 Q. What sort of practice do you have as a lawyer?

21 A. At present my practice is civil practice, although

22 hopefully it is sort of winding down. I also do

23 arbitrations for the United States District Court in

24 New Jersey and mediations under the New Jersey Superior

25 Court, and I do some lecturing or teaching in the law





1 schools in trial advocacy and matters of that nature.

2 Q. Can I ask, when did you first develop an interest in

3 Northern Ireland?

4 A. Well, my mother's family was from Belfast, the McCarrons

5 were from New Lodge Road, so growing up we had some very

6 vague knowledge of Northern Ireland. During the hunger

7 strikes in 1980, I had some peripheral knowledge, I read

8 about it, was concerned about it, but our first interest

9 developed in 1991, when we hosted a youngster from Divis

10 in west Belfast as part of Project Children.

11 Q. At that point in 1991, had you by that stage visited

12 Northern Ireland yourself?

13 A. I had not.

14 Q. No. As I understand it from your statement, it was your

15 involvement in that project which stimulated further

16 interest in Northern Ireland and that in due course led

17 the following year to the founding of the Lawyers

18 Alliance.

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. So far as the Lawyers Alliance is concerned, you say in

21 paragraph 10 of your statement, RNI-812-067 (displayed),

22 that at its outset there was a group of 25 or so lawyers

23 and a retired judge. By the time with which we are

24 concerned in this Inquiry, the late 1990s, how big was

25 the membership of the organisation?





1 A. Well, before coming over here this week, I checked our

2 master list and we had approximately 450 correspondents.

3 A lot of those correspondents were people here in the

4 north and in England. So I would estimate that about

5 200 to 250 American lawyers, judges, retired judges,

6 were involved to some degree in the activities of the

7 Lawyers Alliance.

8 Q. What sort of work, in general terms, did the

9 organisation do?

10 A. Our role, as I saw it -- and this was not an one-person

11 endeavour, you know, we were all among equals, at least

12 I liked to think that -- it was essentially an exchange

13 of information. A lot of Americans became interested,

14 and particularly in the legal profession, in how these

15 Diplock courts worked in the security system, because we

16 would read in the New York Times and elsewhere about

17 cases which could be characterised as miscarriages of

18 justice. So my role and those who were involved as

19 coordinators would be to bring people to the north,

20 because we felt the best way to learn about a system was

21 not to read about it or to hear from others but actually

22 to go there and partner with lawyers, and the local

23 lawyers here in Northern Ireland were very hospitable to

24 us and they would welcome us to meet with them in their

25 chambers and go to court with them and observe





1 proceedings, at the Crumlin Road courthouse mostly.

2 We would then go and meet with people in the

3 community. We did not stay at the Europa Hotel or

4 elsewhere, we would go and live with people and stay in

5 their homes. That began basically with the

6 Ballymurphy Seven case and the Beechmount Five. We

7 wanted to know what life was like for the ordinary

8 people, including some who would be considered Loyalist

9 or Protestant or Unionist, whatever label you choose.

10 That was one aspect of our activity. The other

11 aspect was we would meet with the judges, who were also

12 very open to meeting with us. All the Lord Chief

13 Justices of the past since 1919 have met with us and

14 have been very open to discussion. We would meet with

15 some of the trial judges and appeal court judges and

16 attempt to have a dialogue, exchange, critique on both

17 sides. It wasn't an one-way critique by any means.

18 We would also then bring over to the

19 United States -- when I say bring over, we couldn't pay

20 them anything because we had no funding, but we would

21 invite solicitors and barristers to come to the

22 United States, meet with law students -- we had seminars

23 at the University of Notre Dame, 1995 and 1996, which

24 were attended by solicitors from here in

25 Northern Ireland, and at Ohio Northern University.





1 So we had projects to bring over some of the people

2 here from the north to the United States to meet with

3 members of the legal profession. That is kind of a long

4 way of saying we tried to exchange information from both

5 sides and then, finally, to have some input here by

6 writing what would be considered friend of the court

7 brief to judges here, who were quite open to receiving

8 friend of the court brief, of no official standing but

9 just one legal professional accepting the comments of

10 another.

11 We also then would lobby members of congress in the

12 Unite States and, finally, we were able to make

13 representations to President Clinton and to try and

14 bring attention to what we thought was problems, issues

15 which could be solved by goodwill.

16 Q. Can I just ask you: in relation to these visits that you

17 have described, when was the first one that the Alliance

18 paid to Northern Ireland? Can you remember?

19 A. I recently gave you a chronology of my trips, and I was

20 shocked to realise I made 20 trips to Northern Ireland.

21 I believe 20 -- between November 12th, 1991

22 and February 10th, 2004, a total of 20 trips, I believe.

23 There were a couple of others where I just stayed in

24 England or maybe transited to Norway, but that wouldn't

25 mean that we had 20 Lawyers Alliance trips. Some of





1 these I would come by myself, and perhaps my wife would

2 accompany me if I could persuade her, but I believe the

3 first official trip would have been February 15th.

4 1993.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 A. We came through Dublin.

7 Q. After that, just concentrating on the Lawyers Alliance,

8 rather than your own visits, would there be an annual

9 trip or at least an annual trip? How did it work out?

10 A. I think that is a fair estimate, an annual trip.

11 Q. In relation to specific cases in which the Lawyers

12 Alliance took an interest, what sort of cases would they

13 be?

14 A. Well, the two leading cases initially were the

15 Beechmount Five and the Ballymurphy Seven cases. These

16 were youngsters from west Belfast who had been 16, 17,

17 18 years of age, who had been incarcerated without

18 a trial for a couple of years. We got involved in those

19 two cases and some of the lawyers and barristers who

20 helped us and welcomed us are here in the hearing room

21 today. We were in great admiration of how they handled

22 themselves, successfully in both of those cases.

23 We also became involved in the Stephen Larkin case.

24 He was a gentleman who had been involved in the French

25 Foreign Legion and when he had come back to Belfast was





1 put under suspicion and arrested by the RUC. Ultimately

2 he was exonerated through the work of the local lawyers.

3 We don't take credit for that.

4 We were involved -- there was the Damien Austin

5 case, who was the -- Amnesty International issued an

6 urgent action bulletin because of what was established

7 or at least was felt to be physical abuse and threats

8 against his life by interrogators of the RUC.

9 We were involved in the Sean Clinton case and, you

10 know, I should say that some of the individual members

11 were contacted by solicitors here and picked up their

12 own cases.

13 We then got involved with the -- and also the

14 parades issue started to involve us in 1995/1996, not so

15 much myself directly in the parades but others. You

16 heard from Gerry Lally, who was involved with us. He

17 was very active in that. Jim Cullen from New York,

18 I recall. But we did get involved in the Colin Duffy

19 matter through Jean Forest primarily. Jean Forest is

20 not a lawyer, but I think she was a psychological social

21 worker from New Jersey and Jean got very directly

22 involved in Mr Duffy's case and in turn involved some of

23 our lawyers.

24 Q. We will come to that in a minute if we may. Can I just

25 ask: in relation to cases involving, if I can put it





1 this way, the other side of the community, you say in

2 your paragraph 16, RNI-812-069 (displayed) -- this is

3 about 8 lines up from the end of the paragraph -- that:

4 "We also sought out cases involving Loyalists."

5 Would it be fair to say that the majority of the

6 cases your organisation got involved with were on the

7 Nationalist side?

8 A. Statistically that would be correct but that was not by

9 design. I mean -- and I think I made it clear in my

10 statement; I will make it clear today -- we never drew

11 and line and said: we are here to help the Catholics,

12 Republicans, Nationalists and we are not here to help

13 the Protestant, Unionists, Loyalists. That would not

14 have been our focus, because our group was very diverse.

15 But we do have -- and I recall one of the very first

16 cases of involvement was the UDR4 and Neil Latimer and

17 we were in correspondence with Ian Paisley Junior and

18 some members of, as you say, the other side, the

19 Protestant community, and offering whatever assistance

20 and support we could.

21 There is one specific case I cite but I gather we

22 are not permitted to use that gentleman's name?

23 Q. That is correct. We have a policy of not using

24 non-witness names.

25 A. That case is probably known to most people in





1 Northern Ireland. That was the horrific killing of

2 Margaret Wright at the bandroom in the Village off the

3 motorway here in Belfast. Again, that was Jean Forest

4 who was approached by the alleged perpetrator's wife and

5 she adopted and worked on that case to cause some dismay

6 among the other community, the Nationalist community,

7 but Jean Forest went ahead and did what she could on

8 that case.

9 Q. The impression I get from the last part of this

10 statement -- paragraph 16 of the statement, I am

11 sorry -- is that your experience was that, although you

12 wanted to get involved in cases on the other side, for

13 the Protestant part of the community, you found less

14 willingness to interact with you than on the Nationalist

15 side. Is that a fair summary?

16 A. I think that is correct. There was more of a suspicion

17 of us and our motives on the part of Loyalists. I may

18 discuss it later. We did have a conference at the

19 Dukes Hotel and representatives of the Loyalist

20 community called Justice For All, they showed up and had

21 representations at that conference. I think that was in

22 1996, October of 1996, at the Dukes Hotel.

23 Q. Thank you. So far as Rosemary Nelson is concerned, can

24 I just begin by asking you about the nature of your

25 relationship with her? In paragraph 20 -- RNI-812-070





1 (displayed) -- you say that you regard yourself as

2 a professional colleague and friend, although perhaps

3 not a close friend. Do you see that sentence? What I

4 wanted to ask you first of all --

5 A. Could you just --

6 Q. Sorry.

7 A. What paragraph are you in?

8 Q. Paragraph 20.

9 A. I see that, that is correct.

10 Q. Thank you. What I wanted to ask you is from the time

11 you met her in late 1996 to the time of her murder, how

12 regularly were you in contact with her?

13 A. Let me just also, I think, make a correction. When

14 I went to my old passports last week and went through

15 the stamps for entry, I probably met Rosemary either

16 in June of 1996, which would not be late 1996, or March

17 of 1997, because my passports do not reflect a trip to

18 Northern Ireland in "late 1996". So with that caveat, I

19 will try and answer your question.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 A. I think the total number of times I met Rosemary in

22 person in Northern Ireland would be three. I met her in

23 person, that is -- and I have been in her home and

24 I have met with her husband and her children -- I met

25 her in New Jersey when she had come and testified before





1 a Congressional Committee chaired by Christopher Smith.

2 She then came up to New Jersey and met with Jean Forest

3 and myself and there was a dinner reception for her in

4 Hoboken, New Jersey.

5 Q. So far as the contact, you have described the meetings.

6 We can see from your statement that there was a great

7 deal of correspondence over the years between the two of

8 you, and by you on her behalf. Apart from the three

9 meetings you have described, how would you communicate?

10 Would it generally be by letter or would you speak on

11 the telephone?

12 A. Well, on occasion Rosemary would call me up. I would

13 telephone her. She would -- I kept the originals. She

14 would send me her half sheets and, you know, they would

15 be addressed to, "Dear Sir" or Dear Edmund", so it was

16 primarily by -- it was all on a professional nature. On

17 occasion she would put a personal note, looking forward

18 to seeing me.

19 Something -- having to do with this issue of trying

20 to get protection for her, on occasion I would call her

21 up if something dramatic -- not dramatic, that is not

22 the right word; if something significant happened,

23 I might call her up, and I recall talking to some of her

24 staff and leaving a message. That was primarily the

25 communication. I probably had more communication with





1 some other solicitors in the north than Rosemary, but it

2 was an open exchange of communication.

3 Q. You say in relation to her in this paragraph:

4 "She acted on her convictions in a much more direct

5 manner than I did."

6 Can you help us? What did you mean by that?

7 A. By that I mean that she -- she represented very

8 unpopular clients, and we all know who they are, and the

9 community -- I didn't do that so much in my practice and

10 I look back -- I went into commercial practice and --

11 early in my career I represented defendants but not what

12 we would call unpopular. The ordinary, decent criminal

13 I think is the phrase used over here. On occasion I

14 would represent community groups. I represented some

15 African Americans who were denied their right to vote.

16 But I don't think I was as courageous and determined as

17 Rosemary was in her practice. Her practice was much

18 shorter than mine. At the time I met her I had been

19 practising much longer than her. What I am saying here

20 is that I was in admiration of her, that she carried out

21 her convictions into action.

22 Q. Do you mean by that that she was prepared to take on

23 very unpopular cases?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you also mean by that that she took on cases in which





1 she personally believed?

2 A. Well, I think as a lawyer we have to take on cases which

3 we may not personally believe in. It is our duty as

4 a lawyer. Obviously she believed in the righteousness

5 of the cause of the Garvaghy Road citizens group,

6 residents group.

7 With respect to Colin Duffy? I think she was acting

8 as a professional. She didn't believe, if it be

9 suggested that he was a member of the IRA, she obviously

10 did not believe in that cause, but I would simply leave

11 it at that. She did her duty as a professional to

12 represent her clients to the highest degree of her

13 skills. That was my impression.

14 Q. Did you, in the course of your contact with her over the

15 years, discuss this approach of hers to her work?

16 A. Well, I did. I recall when she was in Hoboken, after

17 the dinner we were chatting and this was -- this was

18 with the height of these threats she was receiving and

19 we were well aware, you couldn't not be aware, of the

20 tragic killing of Pat Finucane and I said to her:

21 "Rosemary, do you ever think of giving this up and

22 just being a regular lawyer and handling wills and real

23 estate and things of that nature?"

24 I recall it vividly. She said, "Edmund, if I didn't

25 do this, what example would that be to the people of my





1 town". I don't know she said Lurgan or Portadown.

2 "What example would it be to the people? If I don't do

3 this for these people, who else is going to pick this

4 up? Who else will do it?"

5 I think that impressed me that she was aware of the

6 danger and I -- and I felt a little foolish after having

7 said it, I mean, saying to her -- it was easy for me

8 here in New Jersey to say: just step away from this. It

9 would be more in her own interest. She rebuked me.

10 This she felt she had to do.

11 Q. Thank you. So far as the first case involving

12 Rosemary Nelson that your organisation became involved

13 in -- that is, as you describe it in your statement, the

14 Colin Duffy case -- and you have just told us, I think,

15 that the original point of contact within the Lawyers

16 Alliance was Jean Forest.

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. You have also explained that Jean Forest had been

19 involved in an earlier case, the Loyalist case you

20 mentioned. How did --

21 A. Excuse me, I think that came later.

22 Q. It came later?

23 A. The Loyalist case came --

24 Q. Thank you. How did the original contact with

25 Jean Forest come about?





1 A. I don't know, to tell you -- between Colin Duffy or

2 Rosemary and Jean Forest?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. I don't know. Jean was -- she would issue press

5 releases concerning the Ballymurphy Seven,

6 Beechmount Five and she was more in the press, shall we

7 say, than I was or the Lawyers Alliance. We kind of

8 tried to avoid that approach, but Jean was not a lawyer

9 and she was very effective the way she handled matters

10 more publicly than we did.

11 Q. Do you think it is possible that Rosemary Nelson herself

12 approached the Lawyers Alliance for assistance with the

13 Colin Duffy case?

14 A. I really don't know, Mr Phillips.

15 Q. Did you have other approaches of that kind from lawyers

16 in Northern Ireland about their cases?

17 A. Sure, we did. We had -- I was looking through my files

18 and I was very nostalgic to find a letter

19 from December 3rd, 1992 from PJ McGrory to me,

20 a gentleman whom we had the highest record for, who was

21 welcoming us and stating that the interests of American

22 lawyers in state abuse of the rule of law in Ireland is

23 very important to us. So we did get -- and I would get

24 letters or contacts. We also would get letters coming

25 out of Long Kesh or the Maze Prison. Once it became





1 known in the north that there were some lawyers in

2 America who were interested in these matters, which was

3 some surprise, I think, to many people, then we did get

4 a lot of material came to us and, as I said earlier, the

5 Irish lawyers here welcomed us and we always took

6 a subservient role, a supportive role, but I think they

7 welcomed the input that a fellow colleague at the law

8 would be willing to come over here at his or her own

9 expense and participate. So we would get overtures and

10 requests for involvement.

11 Q. What involvement in fact did the Lawyers Alliance have

12 in that appeal, in that case?

13 A. In which case?

14 Q. The Colin Duffy case you mentioned? What sort of work

15 did you do?

16 A. I think we wrote some letters. I think there are some

17 letters from myself to -- particularly on his second

18 arrest, concerning the shocking murder of the

19 constables, Graham and Johnston, after the ceasefires

20 had supposedly taken place, and we, I think, contacted

21 people in the United States.

22 I mean, the driving force in the Colin Duffy matter

23 from our side was Jean Forest. There may be some -- and

24 I was involved to some extent more so because of

25 Rosemary's situation as opposed to Colin Duffy. That is





1 why my direct interest was in the safety of

2 Rosemary Nelson.

3 I met with Colin Duffy in his home. I met his wife,

4 his daughter, and I was aware of what happened in that

5 first trial with the issue of Lindsay Robb and then when

6 he was exonerated of that, then the second matter, where

7 they arrested him and then shortly thereafter the

8 charges were dropped.

9 So, to answer your question, I think it would be

10 Jean Forest who wrote letters, created publicity,

11 essentially tried to get the message out that it does

12 not appear that the second charges against Mr Duffy were

13 valid.

14 Q. You have just said a little while ago that your

15 involvement with Rosemary Nelson and the question of her

16 safety came, I think you said, after that. Is that

17 right, that it was after the appeal, in fact at the

18 beginning of the following year, 1997, that you began to

19 be involved in this question of her safety? Is that

20 right?

21 A. Yes. My first direct involvement was my letter

22 of March 7th, 1997 to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. I believe

23 that is my first involvement.

24 Q. Thank you. But in terms of your analysis of the

25 situation, what effect do you think the successful





1 appeal in 1996 had on Rosemary Nelson's profile?

2 A. Well, I will answer based on talking to lawyers, talking

3 to people in Lurgan and Garvaghy Road residents. I

4 don't know whether Rosemary ever directly told me that,

5 but it obviously created a sense among certain members

6 of the RUC that Rosemary Nelson had gotten a cop killer

7 off, and that this was very reprehensible act on the

8 part of Rosemary Nelson and that there was a great sense

9 of anger.

10 No member of the RUC ever told me that, but that

11 was -- you are asking what my opinion, my analysis is.

12 I think that is what happened. It would have been the

13 same in the United States, I think. We have had similar

14 tragedies and cases and situations where someone who is

15 alleged to have killed a police officer, a defender of

16 the community, is then gotten off on a technicality,

17 would be the way it would be phrased in the States.

18 Q. So far as what you have just said is concerned, as I

19 understand it then, you base this on talking to people

20 in Northern Ireland, not talking to the police direct,

21 and you are not sure that you discussed it directly with

22 Rosemary Nelson. Is that a fair summary?

23 A. I think so. Also, probably some subjective judgment on

24 my part, just putting two and two together, that if this

25 had happened in the United States, and particularly in





1 the circumstances of that killing, and you probably have

2 seen my letter which I wrote to one of those chief

3 inspectors expressing my sadness and my dismay at the

4 killing of these two officers, who were community

5 policemen, a man and a woman, I believe. So that may be

6 some subjective conclusion on my part that there was

7 outrage, because obviously the police felt Colin Duffy

8 was a bad person and that he had gotten off for the --

9 otherwise they wouldn't have put up this fellow

10 Lindsay Robb to testify falsely for what he had

11 allegedly seen, and not disclosed to the court that he

12 was being paid and that he was involved in Loyalist gun

13 buys in Scotland.

14 It seemed pretty clear that the police felt that

15 Duffy was a bad person, a member of the IRA, and that

16 one way or another he should be stopped. The second

17 time he got off, I think a fair inference to be drawn is

18 this caused outrage amongst members of the RUC.

19 Q. But it was certainly the inference that you drew?

20 A. And I think others. You have heard them testify here.

21 I don't think it is an inference which is seriously in

22 doubt.

23 Q. To what extent do you think that her work for the

24 Garvaghy Road Residentsí Coalition contributed to the

25 profile that you describe?





1 A. This is the profile among the RUC or among Loyalists?

2 Q. Choose whichever category you want.

3 A. We might not be able to distinguish. Again, you are

4 asking me for opinions and analysis by -- one man's

5 opinion may be worth a little or a lot. It depends upon

6 the foundation. My thought is, having met

7 Brendan Mac Cionnaith and having been in the community

8 centre and met with the residents who came to tell us

9 about their reports of abuse, I think among the

10 Loyalists, the Orange Orders, a view that their

11 legitimate right to march down Garvaghy Road had been

12 frustrated, not only by Brendan Mac Cionnaith and the

13 citizens group, but by this lawyer, Rosemary Nelson.

14 She was the mouthpiece. She was the front person who

15 was frustrating their traditions. I think that caused

16 great ill will toward Rosemary and that is why I think

17 she was starting to get these threats. Not all

18 obviously came from the RUC through the clients at

19 Gough, but they were coming from the Loyalist community.

20 Q. Can I ask you this: as far as you were concerned, your

21 experience and knowledge of her work, was there any

22 other aspect of it which contributed to the profile that

23 you have described?

24 A. Well, you then have the case of Robert Hamill.

25 Robert Hamill of course, we all know, was beaten to





1 death in Portadown, allegedly in front of a heavily

2 armed RUC patrol, who were in a Land Rover and failed to

3 respond. Diane Hamill, his sister, mounted the

4 campaign. Rosemary took the case and was seeking,

5 I believe, damages against the police. But you are

6 asking me for gradations of resentment and profile. I

7 think that was a lesser profile, the Hamill case.

8 Certainly it would have been more localised to

9 Portadown. But I really think it centred on Colin Duffy

10 was the centre of it. The Garvaghy Road citizens group

11 was the second one.

12 Q. Can I ask to you look at paragraph 53 of your statement?

13 It is at RNI-812-081 (displayed). It is at the top of

14 the page. You say --

15 A. Just bear with me a minute.

16 Q. Sorry.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You say again, talking about profile here -- this is at

19 a later period. Then later on in the paragraph you say,

20 the last sentence:

21 "I have no doubt that Rosemary would have

22 represented any member of the Loyalist community if they

23 had sought her assistance, particularly if they had

24 a problem involving the RUC."

25 Can I just ask you: did you know yourself from your





1 own knowledge that she was, at the time you knew her,

2 representing a member of the Loyalist community?

3 A. Well, I think I put this in the possible. I have no

4 doubt that Rosemary would have represented any member of

5 the Loyalist community if they had sought her

6 assistance. I distinguish the Loyalist community from

7 the Protestant community, which she did service in

8 routine legal matters and I think that is beyond

9 dispute.

10 So I don't think that any of the Loyalist accused

11 terrorists came to her but I suggest that if they had,

12 she would have been quite willing to represent them.

13 She did not make value judgments from political motives,

14 from what community they came. At least, she never

15 expressed those to me. So that is why I am saying that

16 if somebody had an problem with the RUC and that person

17 was from the Loyalist community, I think she would have

18 represented them.

19 Q. But from the way you express it, you see, it looks as

20 though it is the problem with the RUC that would have

21 tipped the balance in favour of her taking the case on.

22 Why do you say that?

23 A. Then that is my fault in articulating it. I am

24 suggesting that -- let me go back a bit. I don't think

25 that the fact that somebody was arrested by the RUC





1 would in any way precipitate Rosemary's taking on the

2 case, because who else would arrest them here in

3 Northern Ireland other than perhaps some -- if it was

4 a military involved, but the Army would not be directly

5 involved in arrests. So that is -- I am not suggesting

6 there that the fact a Loyalist had a problem with the

7 RUC, that that would in any way influence Rosemary. If

8 that is what that suggests, that is wrong.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 Can we talk about the question of threats? You deal

11 with this at various parts of your statement. I would

12 like to start, please, at RNI-812-071 and paragraph 24

13 at the bottom of the page (displayed).

14 You there say:

15 "At various times she expressed concern about the

16 threats against her by members of the RUC communicated

17 through clients."

18 Doing what you can at this distance of time, can you

19 remember when you first heard from her this concern?

20 A. Well, it would obviously have pre-dated my letter

21 of March 1997 to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and it

22 probably -- most probably was during the visit right

23 immediately before that, March of 1997. Rosemary was

24 not broadcasting these concerns of hers to the wider

25 community. I believe at that visit in March of 1997 at





1 some point talking to her -- and I was shocked when she

2 told me that this was what she was being subjected to,

3 which precipitated my letter to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper.

4 Q. Can you now remember any more by way of detail about

5 what she told you at that stage?

6 A. I can remember that she indicated that clients had --

7 there had been very negative abusive language directed

8 to her while the clients were being interrogated, which

9 struck me as unusual, that the lawyer would be

10 denigrated by the interrogator seeking facts of an

11 alleged offence. That was something which, dispute all

12 our problems in the United States, we didn't have

13 a common experience of that, of police officers

14 attacking the lawyer when they were questioning the

15 subject. Of course, the lawyer would probably be right

16 in the interrogation or the lawyer would have instructed

17 in the United States the client not to submit to an

18 interrogation, and under our rules of evidence and for

19 criminal procedure the police, unlike Northern Ireland,

20 could not conduct lengthy interviews without a solicitor

21 present.

22 Basically, to answer your question, Mr Phillips, it

23 was that she was getting negative reports, abusive

24 reports, from clients about her that were being made by

25 the RUC. She didn't give the words or didn't get into





1 the details of it.

2 Q. There may be a difference between negative or abusive

3 comments and threats. Are you certain in your mind that

4 what you were being told about at this stage, perhaps

5 in March 1997 was first of all negative and abusive

6 remarks?

7 A. Can you direct me to my letter, to

8 Sir Louis Blom-Cooper?

9 Q. Yes, absolutely. It is at RNI-114-057 (displayed).

10 A. Some of these are not exactly in sequence, Mr Phillips.

11 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: The letter is on the screen if that

12 helps.

13 A. Thank you.

14 MR PHILLIPS: We can enlarge the text.

15 A. I can read that. I have got my reading glasses on here,

16 so I can follow it.

17 Q. Good.

18 A. Yes, well, obviously she had told me about threats

19 because that was -- in my letter to Sir Louis I have

20 stated that:

21 "RNI-114-057A very effective solicitor

22 Ms Rosemary Nelson has been subject to death threats

23 emanating from a RUC detective stationed at Gough

24 Interrogation Centre."

25 So she had.





1 Q. Yes. The difficulty for us is that the letter, as far

2 as one can tell, anyway, comes rather out of the blue in

3 the correspondence.

4 A. I don't follow you there. Out of the blue from where?

5 Q. In the sense that there is no material passing to you

6 from Rosemary Nelson, no written material before this

7 letter.

8 A. Of course, that doesn't mean that she wouldn't have told

9 me about the personally. Rosemary didn't put this all

10 documented in writing because I think, truthfully, she

11 hoped it was going to go away. And she was busy about

12 her business, attending to clients, and it was probably

13 in an offhanded manner that she told me about this and I

14 was perhaps more alarmed at that stage than she was. I

15 don't think it is fair to say it came out of the blue.

16 It was based on what was told to me specifically by

17 Rosemary Nelson.

18 Q. That is what I really wanted to ask you about: can we

19 take it then that this letter reproduces the information

20 she gave you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So that what she told you was that there had been death

23 threats coming from an RUC detective at Gough?

24 A. Now, maybe it should be singular if we are going to put

25 a fine point on it, as opposed to plural for "threats".





1 I know that that word "death" was used; otherwise

2 I wouldn't have put it in there. I knew Sir Louis,

3 I respected him, so I would not have added that myself.

4 So there was at least a death threat as part of the

5 information given to me by Rosemary prior to March 7th

6 of 1997.

7 Q. But do you see the next paragraph suggests that the

8 threats had come through several clients?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. So, by definition, surely there must have been more than

11 one?

12 A. I agree with you.

13 Q. Then if you go two paragraphs down, it is clear that

14 what is being suggested by you to Sir Louis is that this

15 had been going on for a little time. If you look at the

16 last sentence:

17 "The threats have become more insistent and ominous

18 of late."

19 A. Let me go back, Mr Phillips. You say that there is

20 reference there to these threats going on for some

21 period of time.

22 Q. It is an inference I am drawing. Is it a fair inference

23 from that paragraph, do you think?

24 A. I think the last sentence could give the foundation for

25 an inference that certainly there had been threats of





1 not such an ominous nature before and lately they had

2 become more insistent and ominous, but I think that is

3 a fair inference.

4 Q. But it suggests, doesn't it, that you were being told by

5 her that this had been going on for a little while,

6 there was certainly more than one but also that the

7 issue here was about death threats. Is that a fair

8 summary?

9 A. I think that is correct, yes.

10 Q. You see, we are not talking here, in this letter, are

11 we, about abusive or negative comments? We are talking

12 about death threats.

13 A. I think if anyone is at fault for that, it would be me,

14 not Rosemary. I am sure that the highlight of what

15 I recall from having this information from Rosemary was

16 the death threats. I had in mind Patrick Finucane, and

17 from the beginning of my involvement of the attempts to

18 get protection for Rosemary, ever present in my mind is

19 what happened to another courageous lawyer,

20 Patrick Finucane. So it would be not correct to suggest

21 that, because I emphasise death threats, that there was

22 not other abusive, obscene language being issued against

23 Rosemary by members of the RUC through her clients.

24 Q. Thank you. Can I take it then that, as it were, the

25 drafting decision to refer, and refer only, to the death





1 threats was yours?

2 A. Could you give me the page reference again, please?

3 Q. Sorry, it is RNI-114-057 (displayed).

4 A. Okay, just bear with me. (Pause).

5 Perhaps one of your valuable assistants will help me

6 because I have 114-059 and the reason I want my hard

7 copy, I want to refer to it, the prior page is

8 RNI-114-058.505.

9 Q. Mr Lynch, can you tell us which document you are looking

10 for?

11 A. Okay, good. This is fine because I wanted to see the

12 entire text of it.

13 Q. Yes, it goes over the page. We can show you both pages

14 at once, I think.

15 A. Okay, good, can you do that?

16 Q. I am not sure the second page has a great deal on it for

17 you.

18 A. I think it is a little bit ambitious to suggest that

19 drafting decisions were made in preparing this letter.

20 This is a letter I faxed to Sir Louis and I entitled it

21 "Miscellaneous Inquiry" because I was aware this was not

22 in his direct remit. He was the independent

23 commissioner for the holding centres but I had met him

24 personally and I had regard for him, and I thought this

25 would be one way to go beyond the routine complaints





1 system which had shown or had at least -- I felt he was

2 the right person to contact at that time.

3 Any drafting decision, of course, would have been

4 made by me, the author of the letter, and what was of

5 concern was that Rosemary had told me she had received

6 death threats -- she may have told me a death threat,

7 but I think it was death threats -- through her clients,

8 emanating from the Gough Interrogation Centre. There

9 was no conscious decision made during drafting to either

10 include or exclude other offensive language.

11 Q. So far as the conversation which led to this letter is

12 concerned, the conversation you described to us a little

13 while ago, can you remember what Rosemary Nelson's own

14 attitude to these threats was?

15 A. Well, I think you have heard a lot of testimony about

16 how she dealt with these threats from other witnesses,

17 and I can't pin it down to this first communication but

18 my view of it is that Rosemary was genuinely concerned

19 about the threats. However, whether she wanted to put

20 on a brave face or simply she wanted to be about her

21 business of being a lawyer -- and this essentially was

22 a distraction, this was something which would take her

23 time. It would involve her clients, which she was very

24 reluctant to do, to bring clients -- to give statements,

25 particularly if they were still under charge, because





1 those statements would wind up in the hands of the RUC.

2 So I think she was genuinely concerned. And as time

3 passed and nothing was really done of significance to

4 protect her, I think her anxiety increased, but

5 unfortunately there was no way out for her, there was no

6 alternative for her to deal with this.

7 That is why I think ultimately she came to us. We

8 had no jurisdiction here to investigate or do anything

9 of a significant nature within the jurisdiction, but I

10 think the fact she came to American lawyers was a sign

11 of her desperation and her genuine fear.

12 Q. But as I understand it from your statement -- this is

13 paragraph 29 at RNI-812-073 (displayed) -- you say you

14 think she believed that the threats were being made to

15 try to destroy her relationship with her clients. Do

16 you see that?

17 A. I do.

18 Q. Is that something she said to you?

19 A. I think she did. When you read the comments taken from

20 the witnesses who you have the statements from, it seems

21 obvious that the police were trying to paint her as

22 a tout, as somebody who was not good, who was making

23 money, so it was -- the obvious purpose was to put

24 a wedge between a client and the lawyer, and try and

25 persuade the young suspect to confess or to have





1 distrust of the lawyer.

2 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. We will have a ten-minute break

4 until quarter past.

5 (11.05 pm)

6 (Short break)

7 (11.15 am)

8 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Lynch, can I ask you next about the police?

9 You say --

10 A. Mr Phillips, can I just interject before we move on to

11 a new point? I did find my letter to Sir Louis. In

12 fact it was the second document in the bundle, so I

13 apologise for my searching behaviour here.

14 Secondly, you asked me earlier about involvement

15 with the Loyalist community and the Unionist community.

16 I want to be emphatic about that because I also read

17 Chief Tom Reilly's testimony and he became involved in

18 1999 in our trips. I don't think he was fully aware of

19 the efforts that we made to reach out to the Loyalist

20 community, and Chief Reilly was active in New Jersey

21 hosting the Ballymurphy mothers, but I will give you two

22 examples.

23 There was a young man from the Village area of

24 Loyalist area of Belfast. He wound up in Denver, my

25 home town, and one way or another he found out that I





1 was involved in Irish matters and one day he showed up

2 in my library. I struck up a friendship with him.

3 I recall he was wearing a Rangers' jacket. That was

4 a New York Rangers jacket but coincidentally the colours

5 were red, blue and white, and I guess that has some

6 significance here. I won't give you his name but I got

7 some of the views of the Loyalist community and it

8 struck me over the couple of years that our relationship

9 continued -- and he stayed in the United States for

10 a number of years -- their concerns were very similar to

11 what would be known as Republicans.

12 One of the visits he invited me to go and visit his

13 family up in the Village, which I did, and spent time

14 with them. The father was out of work. He had been

15 driving a bus but he quit because he was fearful of

16 being killed or injured, because at the time buses were

17 being attacked. I got to know their concerns.

18 I also had experience in that Project Children, one

19 of the supporters and one of the leaders in our area was

20 a Reverend Carter Smith, a Methodist minister, who had

21 a child from east Belfast, Lord Street, and so on one of

22 my trips he asked me if I would deliver a small present

23 to the family. I did go and had -- the family that I

24 was staying with from Divis was obviously a Republican

25 family. I had a rental car. So two of the teenagers





1 came with me to show me the way to Lord Street and I

2 always remember how they were very fearful. The young

3 lady, her hands were literally shaking when we went over

4 to east Belfast, particularly when I stopped the car and

5 asked one of the pedestrians for directions to

6 Lord Street. But we had a chance to be with that family

7 and spent a good hour there talking, and again it struck

8 me how similar the concerns of this family in the

9 Loyalist family, basically their concerns that they

10 could have security, a job, education for the children.

11 That is what I think motivated most the people in our

12 group to continue.

13 As you know, I put in my statement, my wife happens

14 to be Protestant but, as one of the folks here in the

15 north here said, she is Lutheran so that is not exactly

16 Protestant, I guess, at least not the way they count

17 here.

18 So we had no brief for Catholics, Republicans,

19 Nationalist. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to

20 clarify that.

21 Q. Not at all.

22 Can I ask you about paragraph 25 of your statement?

23 That is RNI-812-072 at the top of the page.

24 A. I should also say you know this statement better than I

25 do, Mr Phillips, and I commend you for that. Yes.





1 Q. Thank you. If we just start at the beginning of that

2 paragraph. You say:

3 "I don't think that Rosemary had any agenda --

4 THE CHAIRMAN: It hasn't come up on our screen.

5 MR PHILLIPS: Sorry, RNI-812-072 (displayed). Thank you:

6 "I don't think that Rosemary had any agenda against

7 the police."

8 That is a significant comment given all the other

9 points you deal with, the complaints coming out from the

10 clients, the behaviour that you describe, and indeed you

11 corresponded about.

12 As far as you were aware, based on your dealings

13 with her, your conversations with her, what was

14 Rosemary Nelson's attitude to the police?

15 A. I think the best word to describe it would be

16 "frustration", that she had to deal with this nonsense.

17 She was there to represent her clients and I don't think

18 she was that experienced in criminal law. You know,

19 these -- for whatever reason, some of these high profile

20 cases wound up on her doorstep and she considered it her

21 duty to represent the client. It wasn't as if she was

22 seeking out cases to embarrass the police or make them

23 to be the enemy of the common person. She just didn't

24 have an agenda against the police but it was

25 frustrating, because ultimately it made her work more





1 difficult.

2 For example, for her to prove that the RUC was

3 threatening her through the clients, she would have to

4 obtain a statement from the client, either written or

5 perhaps under oath, and inevitably that would go to the

6 police and this person, the client, was under some type

7 of charge and that would jeopardise the defence of the

8 client. So I think the best word I could say is

9 "frustration" that she had to deal with this.

10 Q. Just picking up that last point you have made about the

11 implications for the client of putting in a statement,

12 was that something you discussed with her?

13 A. I don't know whether that was something I discussed with

14 her or something, as a lawyer, I would just know and

15 would really draw that conclusion.

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. But ultimately, as you know, she did; she did obtain

18 statements from clients and they did come to Belfast and

19 testify before the Mulvihill Inquiry.

20 Q. Yes. With those remarks in mind, can I ask you, please,

21 to look at paragraph 20, which is RNI-812-070

22 (displayed)? It is a paragraph we looked at a little

23 earlier. The bottom of the page, if we can enlarge it,

24 please. The sentence we didn't look at together earlier

25 is the one that begins:





1 "We were two members of the legal profession with

2 sympathetic views."

3 Do you mean by that that you had shared views about

4 the issues with which she was dealing?

5 A. Would you be more specific about your use of the word

6 "the issues".

7 Q. What I am trying to understand in this particular

8 context is what the word "sympathetic" means in this

9 sentence?

10 A. Well, that would mean her views and my views as to the

11 role of a lawyer were sympathetic, were parallel, were

12 consistent, namely that a lawyer had a duty under his or

13 her oath to fully represent the client to the best of

14 one's ability and to see that justice was done. Those

15 are the views I am talking about. Nothing of

16 a political nature, because we absolutely tried to steer

17 clear of any political involvement from the very first

18 day we came here to Northern Ireland, because we knew

19 what a hot button issue it was. So basically those

20 views would be the duties of a lawyer.

21 Q. Did you discuss with her your own views about the RUC?

22 A. I did.

23 Q. Did she agree with you?

24 A. Well, those views are not encapsulated in one simple

25 sentence. There were expressions over periods of time





1 and I never viewed the RUC as a monolithic organisation,

2 so I can't -- I think your question cannot be answered

3 the way it is drafted.

4 Q. Can I ask you to look at one of your documents? This is

5 the October 1997 press release and it is at

6 RNI-114-076.504.pdf">RNI-114-076.504 (displayed). This is the press release,

7 isn't it, that you issued at the time of the publication

8 of your report into the marching season in 1997? Do you

9 have the press release? We have put it on the screen

10 for you.

11 A. You have a section of it, correct.

12 Q. There are two pages. We can have both pages on the

13 screen.

14 A. 114-074?

15 Q. 076.504. Can we have both pages on the screen, please.

16 (displayed)?

17 A. Bear with me because -- maybe you can enlarge it because

18 this one is very small print here.

19 Q. Can we enlarge the left-hand side, please?

20 A. Fine. I will work with this.

21 Q. Thank you. As I say, this is the press release, isn't

22 it, that you issued in October 1997?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And it announces the report compiled by one of your

25 interns, Kimberley Jones. Do you see in the second





1 paragraph?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. In the section beginning from the fourth paragraph is

4 the quotation from you and it then goes on to express

5 your views about the RUC.

6 A. This is beginning:

7 "Recruitment of experienced police personnel from

8 Scotland ..."

9 Q. No, the section I am looking at is in quotation marks.

10 It says:

11 "The Alliance report presents ..."

12 Do you see that:

13 "... a shocking picture ..."

14 A. I have that, yes.

15 Q. And goes on to say:

16 "We are not presented with the case of a few rotten

17 apples potentially spoiling the barrel. Rather, the

18 entire orchard has been blighted."

19 So you were making comments, weren't you, which went

20 to the organisation itself? You weren't just talking

21 about a few individual officers, because you suggest,

22 don't you, that the remedy or one of the remedies was

23 the complete restructuring of the police force?

24 A. Correct. That was my recommendation and it was based on

25 the very thorough report of Miss Jones, as well as





1 personal testimony, personal statements of individuals

2 who had been abused at parades, and beginning with the

3 Ballymurphy and Beechmount cases of the abuse of those

4 youngsters at the hands of the -- either Special Branch

5 or the interrogators at Castlereagh. But if you look at

6 this, the first sentence says:

7 "The Alliance report presents a shocking picture of

8 a security force run amok."

9 If you read that report and you read the statements

10 of the witnesses, which is all of this is here -- and

11 this was submitted to the RUC, it was submitted to the

12 Northern Ireland Office police division -- I mean, it

13 has chapter and verse and I think that is a fair

14 statement.

15 Now, we document -- and it is documented elsewhere,

16 Amnesty International, British Irish Rights Watch and

17 the Pat Finucane Centre. I mean it was a police force

18 run amok. It doesn't mean that every member of the RUC

19 had run amok, but certain units, the mobile support

20 units, Special Branch, yes, they had run amok and they

21 abused the citizens of this jurisdiction for years.

22 My recommendations, I will discuss them with you, I

23 think ultimately some of them were followed; not that

24 they were my recommendations, but you had the Patten

25 Report and you had the Government come in. There had





1 been some very positive and welcome changes to bring in

2 the PSNI.

3 Q. Can we enlarge the right-hand page as well, please?

4 Because what you were recommending, if I can try and

5 summarise it, this long text, at 8 on the right-hand

6 side, you were recommending that the RUC should be

7 disbanded and the new police force should be established

8 with a different title. Do you see that?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. Then above that, at 7, you were recommending that there

11 should be a board of review to evaluate, as I understand

12 it, every single member of the RUC.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Is that correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. You set out how that would work and what the

17 responsibilities of the review board would be; in other

18 words, that each officer should be assessed as to

19 whether he should be retained, dismissed, placed

20 on probation or that such other relief should be given.

21 A. And obviously the board would devote more attention to

22 those officers who had been identified as abusing the

23 civilians.

24 Q. Did you know at the time you made this recommendation

25 how many members of the RUC there were?





1 A. I think there were 13,000/12,000.

2 Q. So that is what you envisaged, that each one of them

3 would be considered individually by a board of review;

4 is that right?

5 A. That was quite a task, I imagine, I was suggesting but I

6 would be open to some refinement of that. But it has

7 taken place. Unfortunately there hasn't really been a

8 vetting of those who abused the citizens over a period

9 of 30 years, and they have either been pensioned off,

10 maybe they are still serving with the PSNI, but in this

11 particular Rosemary Nelson case the authorities have had

12 the names and descriptions of those very officers who

13 threatened her and, as far as we know, nothing has been

14 done to correct their ways, either by discipline,

15 discharge, and that has been always a great source of

16 dismay to myself and many other people.

17 Q. Hm-mm. Moving up, at 5 and 6 you recommend the

18 establishment of an independent counsel to investigate

19 credible reports of criminal conduct.

20 Above that, in a sort of temporary period, I think

21 you suggest that effectively for 18 months, as

22 a maximum, other officers from other jurisdictions

23 should, as you put it, supervise security activities, do

24 you see that, in Northern Ireland?

25 A. I do.





1 Q. Then above that, that Special Branch should be

2 terminated. Above that, at 2, that all command

3 personnel from Deputy Chief Constable, I think down that

4 means, to the principal officers at each RUC facility

5 should be suspended, and last of that you the

6 Chief Constable himself should be removed.

7 What I wanted to ask you about this is: were these

8 views, as far as you knew, which were shared by

9 Rosemary Nelson?

10 A. I really don't think so. I mean, this was -- I will

11 take full credit or discredit for this, but I believe

12 these were based on my view of the situation and I think

13 you might say they were shared by Sir John Stevens and

14 other people who, with more experience in policing than

15 I had, examined this force, going back to John Stalker

16 and others. This force had failed to serve the function

17 of a police force in a civil society, even granted that

18 there was a war going on and plenty of time had been

19 allowed for reformation.

20 As you see, I have nothing personal with any of

21 these officers or the leadership of the Chief Constable,

22 he was always very gracious to me when I met him on two

23 occasions, but it was a failure of leadership. This is

24 what, at least in my humble opinion, took place here.

25 Failure to discipline errant officers and a failure of





1 leadership. This was my recipe but obviously I didn't

2 expect somebody to jump at it in the British Government

3 or the Northern Ireland Office and advise me that they

4 were moving forward on my plan.

5 Q. But to be clear, these were the views that you yourself

6 held at the time when you were dealing with reports

7 coming from Rosemary Nelson of misconduct of police

8 officers?

9 A. I don't think that would be accurate to say, "coming

10 from Mrs Nelson". Mrs Nelson was one part of a big

11 picture. As you have heard here, starting with

12 Frank McManus, solicitors were consistently -- those who

13 were willing to take on these high profile cases or

14 whether you call them terrorist cases -- consistently

15 subject to a propaganda campaign by interrogators as

16 Castlereagh and Gough.

17 That is one issue. How were the solicitors, who

18 were only doing their job as sworn members of the bar,

19 how were they treated by law enforcement? As

20 distinguished from the judges.

21 The judges, I found, were always open to discussion.

22 As I mentioned earlier, we met with all three of the

23 Chief Justices, Chief Justice Hutton,

24 Chief Justice Carswell and Chief Justice Kerr, always

25 open to discussion, sharing of views.





1 The police, in my experience, the leadership was not

2 open to any other view. They felt that they were under

3 attack and any criticism was in essence advancing the

4 terrorist cause.

5 This was a whole picture I developed and when I read

6 Miss Jones' report, combined with others, I felt it was

7 appropriate for me to offer an alternative way forward.

8 But I do not attribute this to Rosemary Nelson. I don't

9 think it would be fair to do that to her, to charge her

10 with all these ideas of mine.

11 Q. Can I ask you, please, to look at another document,

12 which is at RNI-404-009 (displayed).

13 A. Is that on the screen now?

14 Q. It is now, yes. Just so you are aware of it, this is

15 a document that Mr Foley produced in the course of his

16 evidence, in fact to the Inquiry.

17 A. Which I first saw yesterday, about 2.15, courtesy of

18 your assistant, [name deleted].

19 Q. Thank you very much. That was my first question. You

20 had not seen this document before? Certainly not when

21 you were making your statement?

22 A. And I had never heard of this document.

23 Q. You hadn't heard of an article in this form, which he

24 had published, if he had.

25 A. I don't think he published it. If this article had been





1 published, I certainly would have heard about it. It

2 relates to a meeting, as you know, which I did not

3 attend, but I doubt that Sir Ronnie Flanagan would have

4 welcomed me back to headquarters at Knock in 1999 or

5 welcomed me then if this article had ever seen the light

6 of publication. Nor would he have seen me in the year

7 2001. Nor would any of our Lawyers Alliance members

8 have had access to any Government official if this

9 article had ever been put in a publication.

10 Q. That leads me to the obvious question, because you see

11 it purports to quote you in the sixth and seventh

12 paragraphs. The first quotation beginning, "Look at the

13 documented evidence ..." and the next in the next

14 paragraph, "There's no way of knowing ..." Were you

15 contacted by Mr Foley for your comments in relation to

16 this?

17 A. Never.

18 Q. Are those accurate quotations from you?

19 A. Let me go back a bit because, you know, I read

20 Mr Foley's testimony, Day 26, and it greatly disturbed

21 me because this was never our approach to working in

22 Northern Ireland. I was under the impression he was

23 a lawyer. I had no dealings with him. I didn't know

24 him well at all before 1998. He joined the visit

25 in February of 1998 but I gather he had been living





1 here, from just reading his testimony, or living in

2 London as some type of a journalist and had stayed at

3 Rosemary's house. But if he had ever brought this to my

4 attention, I would never have authorised it. And he

5 admits, I think, in his testimony, he never advised me

6 in advance that this was an article, never sent it to me

7 to be proofed, never sent it to me after publication.

8 Before coming here I checked with some of the other

9 people whom I trust, who attended this meeting with the

10 Chief Constable in February 1998, who say that they

11 never heard such remarks from me, that would it would be

12 out of character for me to have said such remarks. If

13 you read the article, it implies -- and you look at the

14 heading, "RUC Chief and US Lawyer Just About North."

15 That is not the way we operate. We were not going

16 into jousts. This was not one knight against another.

17 But the way you read this, Mr Foley is suggesting that

18 he was one on one with Ronnie Flanagan, "Ronnie Flanagan

19 greeted me", talking about Foley, so this seems to be

20 all about Mr Foley. He implies, however, that I am

21 engaged in a dialogue. He quotes -- he put quotes

22 around Mr Flanagan saying:

23 "We have a vibrant independent police commission.

24 We currently have over 40 officers suspended and off

25 duty."





1 Then:

2 "Lawyer Alliance National Coordinator, Edmund Lynch

3 scoffed at the RUC policing itself. He said 'look at

4 the documented evidence.'"

5 Someone reading this -- I think he described it as

6 a filler piece, couldn't recall well. He talked about

7 some Irish journals, unidentified. Somebody reading

8 this would say: wow, this is a dialogue, Mr Lynch was

9 challenging Mr Flanagan in a discussion and vigorous

10 debate. It never happened. I was not at that meeting.

11 I was down with the Lord Chief Justice Carswell, Justice

12 Patrick Henry, Peter Connell and myself. The people who

13 went to the meeting at my request, who I had confidence

14 in to raise the issue of Rosemary's situation, were

15 John Farrell, Walt Pollard, Tom Burke, and Jean Forest.

16 They were all there and Mr Foley, who seemed to know

17 Rosemary. They were there to present what I felt was

18 the case on behalf of Rosemary, to stop the threats.

19 Now, this article lacks common sense, to come out

20 with this. If this article was ever published, it would

21 have -- in all the years that I have been coming here,

22 it would have been the very sole case where such

23 a publication or such a statement was made publicly. It

24 is undated. We don't know when it was dated. I don't

25 think he knows or told you. Did he complete this





1 article that night, the next week? And the question

2 I have is: why wouldn't he have spoken to me about it?

3 Because if he did, I would have told him: don't ever use

4 my name in that context or don't quote me.

5 Let me go further, though, because I want to be

6 completely truthful. I have no reason to be otherwise.

7 I am not here to impress anybody. I am here out of

8 tribute to Rosemary and her family and the lawyers we

9 worked with.

10 Anyone who travelled to the north would see at times

11 stickers or paintings on the wall, "SS RUC." There were

12 also circulars, "SS RUC". I recall being involved in

13 conversations with local residents who were abused and

14 outraged and hurt by the RUC, referring to estoppel.

15 I recall that. Maybe Mr Foley was present. I recall

16 reading about a comparison between the Ku Klux Clan and

17 members of the RUC who were also members of secret

18 organisations. I think some of those articles were

19 coming out of Washington, the Irish National Caucus, but

20 I am not certain about that.

21 In conversations with some of our members, and there

22 are the ones I mentioned, it is possible that because of

23 some particular tactic, some outrageous conduct of

24 a mobile support unit invading a home, abusing children,

25 composing fraudulent statements for youth, one of our





1 group, and perhaps myself, did say, "These are

2 Gestapo-like tactics." I can't specifically remember

3 saying that but I don't want to err on the side of

4 perhaps avoiding blame or avoiding being held

5 responsible for some harsh comments. I wouldn't use --

6 I don't use the word "Gestapo" lightly. My wife was

7 born into Norway, which was occupied by the Nazis, her

8 father was put in prison when she was a child by the

9 Nazis or the quislings. So I wouldn't treat that

10 lightly but I just cannot say -- I can't say today,

11 having pondered it and thought about it, that at some

12 private moment, exasperation of all the hurt that people

13 had suffered here, seeing what have been done by certain

14 members of specifically the Special Branch and the

15 mobile support units, how people's lives have been

16 ruined and lives have been lost by the abusive conduct,

17 I may have participated in such a conversation, and

18 perhaps Mr Foley was party to it. But it was never

19 meant to condemn the entire membership of the RUC.

20 If that impression -- and I am very upset that

21 10 years down the road such a document has made its way

22 into the public, because obviously it would be hurtful

23 to the good and honourable members to the RUC who served

24 their country and their people, and if that has

25 happened, I apologise. It is not something that any of





1 us in the Lawyers Alliance would want to see happen. I

2 do not, however, back away from my view that members of

3 the RUC acted in an egregious behaviour over many years,

4 beyond what any police force would do, even in a society

5 in conflict such as Northern Ireland.

6 So I have tried to give you a lengthy answer,

7 Mr Phillips, about something which upsets me but I have

8 tried to be 100 per cent truthful. But I can say to

9 you, I did not participate in that meeting on

10 February 17th, 1998 with Sir Ronnie Flanagan, I was not

11 interviewed by Mr Foley and I do not have any

12 recollection of giving him these statements or

13 authorising him to write an article about them.

14 Q. Can I just ask you very simply this: was it your view at

15 the time that the RUC is one step above the Gestapo?

16 A. My view was not -- is not that the RUC, the former RUC,

17 was one step above the Gestapo.

18 Q. Did you think of the RUC and its policing as like

19 members of the Ku Klux Clan policing the south in the

20 1950s and 1960s?

21 A. Well, there was some similarity, in that if you have

22 members of a secret society, such as in the south --

23 this is something that was documented in the south of

24 the United States, where you have members of law

25 enforcement serving two masters. In other words, they





1 are there to serve the public in the daytime, but at

2 night they are there to serve a sectarian, hateful

3 organisation.

4 I think it has been recognised that it is not

5 advisable for members of a police force to be members of

6 these private organisations. I am not comparing the

7 Orange Order to the KKK. I have been in an Orange Order

8 hall in Fermanagh, the Ladies' Auxiliary Hall, and had

9 an interesting two hours of discussion with

10 representatives of the members of the Orange Order. I

11 think it would be unfair to compare the Orange Order to

12 to the Ku Klux Clan. So I don't think that comparison

13 fits. But in some sense there is an analogy to a police

14 officer, a public officer being a member of a separate

15 organisation which has a different agenda.

16 Q. Did you believe that the RUC should be totally

17 overhauled because it was more than 90 per cent

18 Protestant?

19 A. It should be totally overhauled, I believe, for a lot of

20 reasons. Those reasons are in that report of

21 Miss Jones, as well as all the other reports. I think

22 the 90 per cent Protestant, I don't think I would

23 emphasise that because -- but I do think that was of

24 course important, that you have a diverse police force.

25 But the reason for the overhaul was much broader than





1 the fact that, for whatever reason -- and I think there

2 is a debate about what the reasons were -- the force was

3 composed primarily of the majority community.

4 Q. Are your views about the oath to the Crown again

5 correctly set out in the final quotation?

6 A. I actually didn't notice this about the oath to the

7 Crown. My recollection of the oath to the Crown has

8 more to do with barristers, I think, who took a judicial

9 challenge to that some years ago and I remember being

10 here at the time. I think there was a hearing before

11 Chief Justice Carswell. I mean, are you asking me now,

12 do I think that the oath to the Crown should be

13 dispensed with?

14 Q. No, I am not. I am asking you whether that was your

15 view at the time in relation to members of the RUC and

16 their oath to the Crown?

17 A. That I don't remember addressing specifically. I know I

18 didn't express it in any public interview or interview

19 to Foley that he was going to use in an article.

20 Whether I may, in my many, many conversations over the

21 years here, whether I ever said to anyone the doing away

22 with the oath to the Crown is the right thing to do, I

23 don't know. But I do know I agree a lot more has to be

24 done to even out the playing field so that everyone in

25 the north has access to justice. I believed that then,





1 I believe that now.

2 Q. Thank you. Can we return to the question of threats,

3 and paragraph 26 of your statement at RNI-812-072

4 (displayed)?

5 A. Paragraph?

6 Q. RNI-812-072 is the page number. The paragraph number is

7 paragraph 26.

8 A. Thank you.

9 Q. That is the backdrop as you describe it in your evidence

10 to the letter we have already looked at to

11 Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. I think you said earlier, in

12 answer to a question from me, that you can't now

13 remember any detail of the threats that were discussed.

14 A. Is that a question?

15 Q. Is that right?

16 A. I remember the detail, that there was a threat to her

17 life. I mean, I didn't know whether the detail as to

18 how the threat was going to be carried out, but

19 definitely there was a threat to her life and that

20 detail stuck in my mind, obviously.

21 Q. A single threat?

22 A. Well, Mr Phillips, I cannot tell you now, and I am sure

23 you understand why, some 11 years later, whether it was

24 a single threat or a multiple threat, but let me say

25 this: one threat would be one too many. So that is





1 enough, I think, to trigger some type of response from

2 the Government.

3 Q. You can't remember where it took place, what the threat

4 consisted of or any other detail of that?

5 A. I am sorry, I told you what the threat consisted of; it

6 was a threat that she would die, that there was a death

7 threat. I have since read one of her clients who has

8 come forward and I gather is going to testify here

9 tomorrow that there was a death threat.

10 I think it was told to me in person by Rosemary

11 because this is not something she would say on the

12 phone, "Oh, by the way, Ed, my client said they are

13 going to kill me or they are threatening to kill me."

14 but I can't tell you whether it was in Lurgan, in

15 Belfast or the -- but it definitely happened,

16 Mr Phillips, because, you know, I had other things to

17 do. I was not going to write a letter to Sir Louis,

18 raising an issue which obviously was a very significant

19 issue and asking him to do something about it, contact

20 the Attorney General unless there was a basis that

21 I knew that someone who I trusted had told me, namely

22 Rosemary.

23 Q. If you look at paragraph 26 and the first sentence of

24 27, in your statement you are telling us, I think,

25 aren't you, that it was following a conversation with





1 a senior lawyer here, I think, that you decided that you

2 had to try to seek protection for Rosemary Nelson?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. You don't refer there to a conversation with

5 Rosemary Nelson herself, do you?

6 A. I think that the conversation with the QC had to do

7 termination of the harassment. If you read the balance

8 of that sentence, you will see -- I think I was -- we

9 had a good relations with this particular QC and

10 I respected him then and now, and basically I think

11 said, "What can be done about this?"

12 Q. So, as I understand it, you then had a discussion with

13 her and she agreed with the decision to seek protection.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Is that right?

16 A. Yes, and --

17 Q. What sort of protection was she looking for?

18 A. I think Rosemary would have been open to any genuine

19 effort to protect her from any responsible source,

20 including the RUC. If there was some belief that an

21 independent and reliable entity within the RUC would

22 have taken steps to protect her, and she never said to

23 me, "Oh, well, look, Edmund, I think we ought to contact

24 such and such agency". If we were in the United States,

25 I know what I would have done, I know what agency I





1 would have contacted, either the FBI or the Department

2 of Justice. But she did not designate. She basically,

3 I think, left it to my discretion to deal with any

4 international effort on her behalf.

5 Q. That leads me to this question: why did you not contact

6 the RUC?

7 A. Because I did not have confidence that the very entity

8 from which the threats were emanating would deal with

9 them in a responsible manner. Also, I had seen what had

10 happened in the Ballymurphy cases, Beechmount Five cases

11 and had read reports. I just had no confidence that the

12 RUC had a capable method of investigation of

13 particularly against -- put aside complaints against,

14 you know, the conduct against solicitors, against the

15 ordinary citizen here in the north.

16 I felt it would be better to contact

17 Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. He had welcomed us, our first

18 visit in 1993. We had met with him the time he was

19 a representative of the British Government, in --

20 independent, of course, commissioner for holding

21 centres, and the consensus of our group after meeting

22 with Sir Louis Blom-Cooper was: number 1, he was a good

23 lawyer; number 2, he didn't seem beholden to the British

24 Government; and number 3, he seemed to have a good

25 rapport with us. After that first meeting we had





1 further contacts and I remember meeting him in New York,

2 having lunch with him and one of our members -- I don't

3 know whether that was before or after this letter

4 of March 7th, 1997 -- I felt the quickest and most

5 efficient way to get some action was to contact

6 Sir Louis.

7 Q. If we look at your letter at RNI-114-057 again

8 (displayed) -- it will come up on the screen. Can we

9 enlarge it, please, the whole text?

10 In the sixth paragraph beginning, "Would you kindly

11 ..." as I understand it, what you were asking

12 Sir Louis Blom-Cooper to do was to refer this case, this

13 problem, to the Attorney General.

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. You were doing so in order that the threats you describe

16 in the letter could be subject to a criminal

17 investigation. Is that correct?

18 A. Well, my purpose was -- overriding purpose, was to

19 terminate the threats, to allow Rosemary to conduct her

20 practice as any other lawyer should be permitted, and

21 I did think, if this investigation proved true that

22 there was criminal conduct, threatening a death,

23 a terroristic threat to an individual is a crime in any

24 jurisdiction.

25 Q. Does the letter then deal with the potential criminal





1 conduct about which you had been told by

2 Rosemary Nelson?

3 A. Well, I mean, the short answer, as one lawyer to

4 another, Mr Phillips, is the letter speaks for itself.

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. But perhaps you wish to invite my attention to

7 a particular paragraph.

8 Q. The focus on death threats is very much what I had in

9 mind.

10 A. Yes?

11 Q. Was that the reason, because of the death threats, that

12 you wanted there to be a criminal investigation?

13 A. Well, I thought there was criminality. If these reports

14 were true which were being received, there was a range

15 of criminality. One would, of course, be issuance of

16 a death threat against a solicitor. Another would be

17 a sworn member of a law enforcement agency engaging in

18 what can only be described as obscene and humiliating

19 comments during the course of an investigation. That

20 would be dereliction of duty, it would be contrary to

21 the function of a police officer. So that would fit

22 under the heading of appropriate criminal investigation,

23 and particularly I felt that the Attorney General would

24 have the power of subpoena.

25 I wasn't sure then whether there was still a grand





1 jury in the north, but the way it would have been dealt

2 with in the United States is that the Attorney General's

3 office in Washington would have appointed -- probably

4 relied on the FBI to open a criminal investigation,

5 interview all relevant witnesses, take statements and

6 then develop a roster of those people who have knowledge

7 of the facts, and then a grand jury would be empanelled

8 and all those, including the alleged offending officers,

9 would be subpoenaed to the grand jury.

10 Now, the officers, if they were targets of the

11 investigation, could decline to appear before the grand

12 jury, but the reason I thought that it would be good to

13 go to the grand jury is that I thought the Attorney

14 General of Great Britain would have similar powers, as

15 opposed to just some internal RUC investigation.

16 Q. At this stage, in March 1997, did you have any written

17 statements from any of the clients?

18 A. I do not believe so.

19 Q. Do did you know at this stage, when you say "several" in

20 the third paragraph, how many clients were involved?

21 A. Well, if we are precise here, "several" would mean more

22 than two and I think that was -- Rosemary hadn't told me

23 the names of the clients but I think I recall "several",

24 I think that was her word, that several clients had

25 reported this to her. So I did not know the exact





1 number.

2 Q. No. Now, so far as the police is concerned, again just

3 reading the letter, it looks as though you had been told

4 about a particular police officer based at Gough. Is

5 that right?

6 A. An RUC detective?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. But as it turns out, there were at least five,

9 I believe, four or five.

10 Q. But that is not obvious from the letter, is it?

11 A. No, and I probably didn't know that at the time.

12 Q. No. So far as the Attorney General's role in this was

13 concerned, you say in the sixth paragraph:

14 "Please do not rely upon the RUC to investigate one

15 of its own members."

16 That particular point, was that one which you

17 yourself decided to make or is it one that had been

18 suggested to you in the conversations you had had in

19 Northern Ireland?

20 A. Well, this is my particular point. It is based on the

21 consensus of people that I had dealt with and spoken

22 to -- and we are talking about 1997. So I had been

23 involved for about -- actually, in my very first visit

24 in the fall of 1991 I had some exposure to conduct of

25 the RUC from the family I was staying with, they gave me





1 a report, and there was some other information came to

2 me. So I think this was the consensus opinion that it

3 would be an academic exercise to ask the RUC to

4 investigate one of its own members.

5 Q. Did you show Rosemary Nelson or provide her with a copy

6 of this letter in draft before you sent it?

7 A. No, I did not.

8 Q. No. So far as Sir Louis Blom-Cooper is concerned, did

9 you know at the time you wrote this letter that his own

10 remit did not extend to investigating matters of this

11 kind?

12 A. I was unsure of that because I don't think I had the

13 text of his remit. I knew that he was the independent

14 commissioner for holding centres and my understanding

15 was Gough was one of those holding or interrogation

16 centres, so I thought that he would have some role to

17 play in this matter, although I wasn't exactly sure what

18 role.

19 Q. You learnt from his reply, didn't you, or rather his

20 secretary's reply, which came very promptly -- I think

21 it is in fact dated the same day or the next day -- that

22 in fact his remit did not extend to investigating

23 matters that of kind? Do you remember that? Can we

24 have a look at the documents? It is at RNI-114-058.500

25 (displayed).





1 A. The most important information conveyed to me by

2 Sir Louis's secretary is that he had taken action which

3 I requested. He said:

4 "I have today written to the Attorney General's

5 office."

6 Also that Sir Louis shared "your deep concern"; in

7 other words, he shared my concern. So these were

8 positive signs coming from Sir Louis. And at this point

9 I was encouraged and I probably sent this on to

10 Rosemary.

11 Q. As I understand it, you were not, at this point in any

12 event, expecting Sir Louis to investigate; you were

13 hoping that he would pass it to the Attorney General to

14 investigate. Is that right?

15 A. Yes, it is right but -- and I did, and he did exactly as

16 we requested.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. I don't see -- you refer to this -- that he stated it

19 was not in his remit. I don't see that in this --

20 Q. We can look at that, if you would like to. It is with

21 the enclosure with this letter. It is RNI-114-058.500

22 is the letter. He encloses, if you see, a passage of

23 his latest report and that is at the next page,

24 RNI-114-058.501 (displayed).

25 A. He continues -- you are right. He cites the case





1 examples, defence lawyers' complaints.

2 I am sorry, Mr Phillips, I thought you were saying

3 that in this letter to me of March 14th, 1997 from

4 Sir Louis to me he said that this Nelson matter was

5 beyond his remit. He didn't say that.

6 Q. No, he didn't in the text of the letter.

7 A. I thought --

8 Q. You said earlier that you were aware that it fell

9 outside his remit and what I was trying to find out from

10 you is when you learnt that.

11 A. Excuse me, I don't think I said that, Mr Phillips. I

12 was not sure whether this question of threats coming

13 from a holding centre was inside or outside of

14 Sir Louis's remit, but I just felt from my dealing with

15 him that he would be a good person to contact, and he

16 did -- he did what we asked, namely he transmitted this

17 to, I think, the proper person. The problem is what

18 happened thereafter.

19 Q. Let us just deal with that. The Attorney General

20 received the matter from Sir Louis and referred it to

21 two organisations, didn't he, the first being the ICPC,

22 the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, and

23 the second to the complaints department of the RUC. Is

24 that right?

25 A. Could you direct me to a document, Mr Phillips? I think





1 that is right, but I would like to be accurate. What

2 document --

3 Q. Perhaps you can start with your own statement, which is

4 paragraph 31, RNI-812-073 (displayed). At the bottom of

5 the page.

6 A. Okay, you are referring to the letter dated March 20th,

7 1997 from the Attorney General's legal secretariat,

8 which stated that someone blacked out had written to the

9 RUC regarding my letter to the Attorney General;

10 correct -- which I thought was completely

11 unsatisfactory -- and that the Attorney General wanted

12 the matter to be brought to the attention of the ICPC;

13 correct. Those are accurate statements, I believe.

14 Q. Why did you describe that as unsatisfactory, what he had

15 done with your letter?

16 A. Well, if you go back to our request and the reason we

17 went to Sir Louis and asked him to -- the Attorney

18 General to take control of this investigation, because

19 of the lack of trust of the RUC -- in the RUC conducting

20 a bona fide investigation.

21 As far as the ICPC was concerned, I gather they were

22 a relatively new organisation. I didn't know much about

23 them and, as you know, later, Rosemary did cooperate

24 with them and I cooperated with them and witnesses

25 cooperated with them, and not much came out of that





1 investigation, not much of value came out of that

2 investigation.

3 Q. Can we just look at one of the letters you received

4 back, this one from the ICPC? It is at RNI-202-011

5 (displayed), the letter of 24th March. Do you see:

6 "I confirm your letter dated 1st March has been

7 forwarded to the Assistant Chief Constable, who is

8 responsible for recording and investigating complaints

9 against police officers."

10 Had you made a complaint?

11 A. Pardon?

12 Q. Had you made a complaint in your letter of 13th March?

13 A. My letter was dated March -- yes, that was a complaint,

14 definitely. I mean, it wasn't through the regular

15 channels, certainly, but this was a complaint after

16 consultation with Rosemary Nelson, after talking to a QC

17 who we respected. This was a complaint.

18 Q. Mr Lynch, in your letter of 13th March were you calling

19 for a complaints investigation?

20 A. No. By that you mean complaints within either the RUC

21 or the ICPC?

22 Q. What sort of investigation were you calling for in your

23 letter of 13th March 1997?

24 A. This was an extraordinary situation, Mr Phillips. You

25 have a member of the bar, an officer of the court, being





1 threatened by members of law enforcement. I thought

2 that this would be something that the chief law

3 enforcement officer in the jurisdiction, namely the

4 Attorney General, would conduct an investigation.

5 Whatever he or she chose, the Attorney General's office

6 chose, would be certainly within their discretion. I

7 wasn't about to tell them what to do, the Attorney

8 General, but what was so disappointing was they kicked

9 it back to the same agency that was involved in the

10 alleged wrongdoing, namely the RUC. So I didn't spell

11 out and I didn't think I had to. I mean, the Attorney

12 General is obviously an accomplished lawyer and I did

13 not have to spell out what was needed here.

14 Q. When you received that letter, did it not occur to you

15 that they were not launching a criminal investigation?

16 A. I think what occurred to me is that sending it back to

17 the RUC, the Assistant Chief Constable is just doing

18 what we didn't want them to do. It is obviously -- I

19 can't answer that. It seemed to me that obviously the

20 Attorney General was not launching any investigation,

21 criminal, civil, disciplinary.

22 Q. Did you write back to register your protest?

23 A. I have listed -- and I think I can give you the

24 citation -- six occasions where I wrote to authorities

25 in Ireland and Britain specifically stating that I, on





1 behalf of Rosemary Nelson, did not consent, did not

2 agree to the RUC investigating itself, and in some of

3 those letters I set forth the reason why.

4 We have the first letter, March 13th, 1997 to

5 Sir Louis. That is at RNI-114-057. I have a follow-up

6 letter, June 30th, 1997 to Mr Donnelly of the ICPC

7 dated -- document RNI-114-063 -- reminding him that we

8 had requested the Attorney General, not the RUC, to

9 conduct the investigation. July 17th, 1997, I wrote to

10 Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, RNI-114-070, and said,

11 "Do not refer to the RUC". July 17th, 1997, I also

12 spoke to the deputy chief executive of the ICPC and

13 suggested an independent investigator from England,

14 Wales or Scotland, which I am sure Rosemary would have

15 accepted; that is at RNI-114, either 068 or 668. And

16 August 14th, 1997 I wrote to the supervising assistant

17 to the Chief Constable of the RUC, who was getting

18 involved, I think, with some thoughts of their

19 investigation, again pointing out that it was not our

20 preference or desire that the RUC get involved; that is

21 document RNI-114-074. Finally, October 16th, 1997,

22 I wrote to the Northern Ireland Office, RNI-114-076.506.pdf">RNI-114-076.506,

23 with some related documents 508.

24 So, yes, to give a long answer to your question,

25 Mr Phillips, I made it abundantly clear that the





1 proposal that this investigation would then go back to

2 the RUC, with or without ICPC involvement, was not

3 satisfactory.

4 Q. You knew from Rosemary Nelson herself, didn't you, that

5 she shared that view?

6 A. I think Rosemary's view was this: if at any time it had

7 been presented to her that she would get an

8 investigation or security from the RUC that she could

9 trust, she would have cooperated. As witness the fact

10 that once Commander Mulvihill was appointed in the

11 summer of 1998, Rosemary did cooperate, helped produce

12 witnesses in Belfast to give testimony.

13 I would have copied Rosemary in on these documents.

14 I don't think -- she never called or wrote and said --

15 objecting to any of my letters that I have just cited.

16 So I think her view was consistent, that she could not

17 rely on the RUC, but she was open to the possible bona

18 fide investigation if the RUC would conduct it.

19 Certainly not sending it back to Lurgan, you know, her

20 home town, not to that location. If there had been some

21 public integrity section within the RUC that was not

22 under the control or the veto power of the

23 Chief Constable, I think she would have cooperated.

24 Q. You, in the summer of 1997, did what you could to

25 encourage her to cooperate, didn't you?





1 A. Well, that letter, as I am sure you are referring to,

2 is, if you will note, I think in my introductory

3 paragraph I said words to the effect, Rosemary knew no

4 better than I what should be done here.

5 Q. Yes, it is RNI-114-060.502 (displayed).

6 A. Yes. Right, that letter has several concepts in it, and

7 as I say, paragraph 3:

8 "You know better than me how this case should be

9 handled."

10 I always felt that way, and that is the way we dealt

11 with the lawyers here in the north. They were on the

12 ground, they dealt with the situation every day. Now,

13 I do say, of course, it is unsatisfactory that the RUC

14 will investigate itself. That was consistent. Then

15 I put my "however" in there. This was my thought and

16 treading over into the area of speculation:

17 "Perhaps in view of the new administration in London

18 [I believe that was reference to Mr Blair by this time]

19 and the professed determination to reform the RUC, it

20 might be worthwhile to proceed with the investigation.

21 Of course, you should be represented by counsel and your

22 interview should be conducted at your offices, not at

23 the Lurgan RUC station."

24 I even went so far -- I see I am recommending

25 a lawyer I knew about, but I hope the rest of the bar





1 doesn't take offence at that.

2 Q. So it was at this stage it looks as though she was being

3 invited to attend an interview at Lurgan and, as I

4 understand it, one of your concerns about that on her

5 behalf -- and this is your paragraph 38 at the top of

6 RNI-812-076 (displayed) -- is that the place she was

7 being invited to attend was the place from which the

8 threats had issued.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. The threats had issued from -- this is the suggestion

11 made to you -- Gough Barracks, hadn't they?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. She was being invited to attend the local police

14 station, not the holding centre, wasn't she?

15 A. I agree with you, but I think truthfully that is

16 a difference without a distinction in that -- and if you

17 look at that invitation to Rosemary from the RUC to

18 attend at Lurgan Barracks, it was something you might

19 send to an irate motorist who got an officer who had

20 been rude to them while administering a traffic ticket.

21 It was just a routine: show-up at such and such an hour

22 to be interviewed. I think there was also a paragraph:

23 if that is not convenient, choose another time.

24 I had ambivalent feelings about this because my

25 thought at one point was I thought she should go and





1 confront the RUC, the investigator, and say: what are

2 you going to do about this, here is the evidence, what

3 action are you going to take? That was a bit unfair of

4 me to impose that on Rosemary, because she had been

5 through hell with some of the people going to -- we

6 heard testimony, they called her "Scar Face". It wasn't

7 a pleasant experience for Rosemary Nelson to go into

8 a police station. I don't think I was aware of all

9 those details. I was somewhat presumptuous to say to

10 her: why don't you go and participate in this? But

11 I left it up to her and I agree with her decision not

12 to.

13 The only downside to that is now it is being

14 suggested by some -- and I think Mo Mowlam at the time

15 suggested -- in essence Rosemary Nelson is in some

16 degree partly responsible for her own assassination

17 because she refused to cooperate with the RUC

18 investigation, which I think is completely unfounded.

19 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, 25 to one.

21 (12.24 pm)

22 (Short break)

23 (12.35 pm)


25 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Lynch, can you look, please, at





1 paragraph 39 of your statement, RNI-812-076 is the page

2 (displayed). Can we enlarge the paragraph, please?

3 Paragraph 39. Thanks.

4 Do you see in the second sentence you explain why

5 you telephoned in June, June 1997? You say:

6 "I felt the threats against Rosemary were getting so

7 serious that I just picked up the phone."

8 Can you remember now, because there is no document

9 to evidence it, what it was that you learnt at that time

10 in June that made you pick up the phone?

11 A. I cannot identify specifically what prompted that phone

12 call but, if I would hazard an educated guess, it would

13 either have been a communication from Rosemary via

14 telephone or Jean Forest may have called me and alerted

15 me to some communication that she had with Rosemary

16 because, of all of our group, I think Jean Forest was

17 the closest to Rosemary Nelson.

18 Q. It sounds, doesn't it, as though things were getting

19 worse?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. But you can't remember any more detail at this stage?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Moving on to paragraph 40 on the same page, if we can

24 enlarge that, please, paragraph 40 on the same page,

25 RNI-812-076 (displayed). As I understand it, what you





1 are telling us there is that you agreed with

2 Rosemary Nelson that to turn up at the station, the

3 police station, as had been requested, would not be

4 a effective way forward.

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And as I understand it, that was the position she

7 maintained until later in the year, when I think she was

8 interviewed, wasn't she, in, I think, September in the

9 course of one of these investigations?

10 A. I think you are referring to September 1998?

11 Q. Right. You think it was the following year?

12 A. That would be when Commander Mulvihill from the

13 Metropolitan London police had come on the scene, and I

14 think Rosemary and I and others felt that this would be

15 a potential for legitimate help.

16 Q. Yes. That is what you say in your statement: you think

17 that it was Commander Mulvihill's involvement that led

18 to the change. Do you see that in paragraph 42 at the

19 bottom of the page, RNI-812-076 (displayed)?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Were you aware then that she was interviewed a year

22 earlier than that, in September 1997?

23 A. By whom?

24 Q. By the investigating officers in relation to the

25 complaints.





1 A. From whom? Which agency?

2 Q. From the RUC. Were you aware of that?

3 A. Would you repeat the question again?

4 Q. Were you aware that she was interviewed

5 in September 1997 in relation to complaints by

6 investigating officers of the RUC?

7 A. I don't think I was.

8 Q. Can you look, please, at RNI-114-099.508?

9 A. What is that?

10 Q. It will come up on your screen and you will see it.

11 (displayed). Do you see it is a statement of

12 Rosemary Nelson dated 16th September 1997?

13 A. Yes, that statement -- I have seen that before. That

14 has been provided to me.

15 Q. Yes. It was provided to you by Rosemary Nelson on

16 4th November 1997, wasn't it?

17 A. Well, I would -- if you say so, Mr Phillips, I am sure

18 it was. I don't have the exact record of when it was

19 received but I know I have seen that, yes.

20 Q. Can we look at RNI-114-099.507 (displayed). There we

21 see the letter to you enclosing the statement.

22 A. Right, thank you.

23 Q. That is why I have shown you these documents, because of

24 the suggestion in your own witness statement that the

25 change in her attitude came with the arrival of





1 Commander Mulvihill. This was long before he arrived on

2 the scene, wasn't it?

3 A. When I say the change in her attitude, I think maybe the

4 more correct phraseology would be the change in her

5 expectation, that she expected something to come out of

6 the Mulvihill involvement.

7 Q. Do you remember discussing with her before

8 September 1997 whether she should attend to be

9 interviewed?

10 A. I do not.

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

12 RNI-114-061, which is a letter you wrote to the

13 investigating officer on 30th June 1997 (displayed).

14 This was after the arrest of Colin Duffy, you will see,

15 for the murder of the two police officers in Lurgan. Do

16 you see that reference in the fourth paragraph?

17 A. Correct, I do.

18 Q. So far as the information in this letter is concerned,

19 and specifically the information about his arrest,

20 detention and the allegation against him, did that

21 information come to you from Rosemary Nelson?

22 A. It would either have come from Rosemary or from

23 Jean Forest. I think also Sharon Farrell, an attorney

24 who was affiliated with our group, was involved with

25 Colin Duffy's case. So it would have been from one of





1 those sorts.

2 Q. But specifically the information about what the

3 interrogators of Mr Duffy had allegedly said about

4 Mrs Nelson, did that information come from

5 Rosemary Nelson herself, do you think?

6 A. Are you referring to who condones murder?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. That actually -- and I don't think Rosemary was aware of

9 it but that statement is actually in Colin Duffy's

10 statement that you have as exhibit here. I know in one

11 of her statements Rosemary says she doesn't believe that

12 a statement was made by Colin Duffy quoting the officers

13 as saying, "Mrs Nelson is a person who condones murder",

14 but in fact Colin Duffy states that. That would be in

15 RNI-114-099.513, concerning an interview of June 1st,

16 1997 and that is where that phraseology comes from,

17 although what I can't tell you today when I received

18 Colin Duffy's statement concerning the interview

19 of June 1st, 1997.

20 Q. Let us have a look at it. It is RNI-114-099.513

21 (displayed), and it is dated 15th October 1997, so

22 obviously not by the time you wrote the letter of

23 30th June. Do you see the word "condone" which comes

24 six lines from the bottom of the page?

25 A. Right:





1 "I was left under no illusion as to the implication

2 of what he was saying and that being that my solicitor

3 in some way was partial and that she would have in some

4 way condoned the specific allegations which were being

5 put to me, which were that my solicitor was 'proud' of

6 what I had done:"

7 Namely, killing of the two officers. Now, obviously

8 I didn't have this statement when I wrote the letter

9 in June of 1997 but some source -- because the statement

10 relates to an interview of June 1st, 1997. It is

11 somewhat delayed by some five months. So I wasn't

12 relying on this statement but I don't know whether it

13 was something conveyed to me by Jean Forest or

14 Colin Duffy himself. I was in Ireland in June of

15 1996, June 24th, 1996 I arrived at Heathrow. But that

16 is all I can say about this, that I didn't pull this

17 phrase "condones murder" out of thin air, it was the

18 source. Then there was other numerous references in

19 Duffy's statement and others about what the message was

20 being conveyed by the RUC is that Rosemary Nelson was

21 a supporter of the murder of police officers, which of

22 course was very far from the truth. It was

23 reprehensible to suggest that.

24 Q. Can we --

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you in Ireland in June 1997?





1 A. Pardon?

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you in Ireland in June 1997?

3 A. I do not believe so. June 1996, March 1997 and the next

4 visit, as far as my passport discloses, January of 1998.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 MR PHILLIPS: Can we just go back to your letter, please,

7 RNI-114-061 (displayed)? Can I ask to you look at the

8 third paragraph? That is very similar to the comment

9 you made right at the beginning of this process, on

10 13th March, when you wrote to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper.

11 Can I ask you, in relation to these matters, the

12 detective sergeant and the disparaging statement, the

13 detainees; at this stage, 30th June, did you have any

14 written statements from the clients or detainees?

15 A. Okay, the date of my letter is June 30th, 1997. Okay.

16 Rosemary sent me the actual statements by the three

17 witnesses, who are blacked out here. I received

18 them November 4th, 1997.

19 Q. So you hadn't received them by the stage you wrote this

20 letter.

21 A. Just hold on a moment. (Pause).

22 I received -- I don't think I had the formal

23 statements, because I had received correspondence from

24 Rosemary, May 14th, 1997 and May 21st, 1997, but they do

25 not appear to be enclosures accompanying those letters.





1 So I think the answer is I did not have the formal

2 signed statements of the three witnesses who I later

3 received the statements.

4 Q. Thank you. Can we look now at the letter, the same day,

5 you sent to the ICPC and that is at RNI-114-063

6 (displayed). There is just one specific thing I want to

7 ask you about in this. It is in the fourth paragraph.

8 If we can enlarge the fourth paragraph, please, which

9 begins:

10 "With specific reference ..."

11 Thanks. Do you see that paragraph:

12 "With specific reference ..."?

13 A. I do.

14 Q. Then there is the words "condoned murder" again.

15 A. I do.

16 Q. Then it is the last sentence I wanted to ask you about.

17 What had you learnt about death threats received at

18 Rosemary Nelson's office?

19 A. Again my source I think would have been either Rosemary,

20 Jean Forest, Sharon Farrell, that not only were the

21 threats coming through clients but she had received some

22 phone calls, I believe, at her office, and I think she

23 received some handwritten sort of scribbled note which I

24 think it is -- the consensus was these were not coming

25 from the RUC but from some Loyalists who -- nobody could





1 tell, of course, because there was no real

2 investigation, no testing for forensics on it. That is

3 basically what I had heard, that she was now getting

4 threats directly at her office, and I also believe -- I

5 can't be sure of this -- I think in her home too.

6 Q. At her home?

7 A. Pardon?

8 Q. You think you had already been told that she had

9 received threats at her home?

10 A. I said I can't be sure. Let me just correct that. I

11 think the concern is -- it was well-known where she

12 lived in Lurgan, we were concerned about her home

13 security, but what I do know is that she had received

14 death threats at her office.

15 Q. Can you assist us with any further details about the

16 threats?

17 A. I cannot.

18 Q. No. Can I ask you this: you see the last paragraph, you

19 ask the ICPC to refer the case to the Attorney General,

20 having made your point earlier that you doubt that the

21 serious matter can be dealt with internally by the RUC.

22 Am I right in thinking that what actually happened was

23 that the ICPC told you that they couldn't do that, and

24 this became yet another complaint under the police

25 complaints structure?





1 A. I don't follow that, Mr Phillips. You say the ICPC told

2 me something?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Where would that be?

5 Q. Can I ask to you look at the letter, RNI-114-065

6 (displayed)?

7 A. I have it.

8 Q. The last paragraph.

9 A. Yes, I am aware of that. What is your question?

10 Q. They were telling you, weren't they, that it wasn't

11 their practice, which is what you had asked them to do,

12 to refer matters to the Attorney General?

13 A. That is what they said.

14 Q. They were also telling that attempts to interview

15 Rosemary Nelson had not been successful. Do you see

16 that in the second paragraph?

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. The question I asked you earlier, when we had

19 established together that she was indeed interviewed

20 in September 1997, shortly after this, two months

21 afterwards, was whether you had discussed the question

22 of her attending an interview with the investigating

23 officers?

24 A. I don't think that I did. I am uncertain, but I don't

25 think that she -- Rosemary was receiving guidance from





1 others. I was not officially her lawyer, I was not

2 admitted in this jurisdiction and I didn't expect her to

3 be following my advice. My role in this entire matter,

4 as I see it, was to convey messages, so to speak

5 a messenger, to send the message to responsible

6 authorities that: you have a lawyer who is being

7 threatened, please take action promptly to protect her.

8 Apparently she chose -- and I don't fault her for that

9 at all, I think it showed good faith on her part -- that

10 she did go part after July of 1997 to try the process

11 and did meet with the RUC investigator, September of

12 1997.

13 Q. Yes. You say in your statement at paragraph 41, which

14 is RNI-812-076 (displayed), that it was clear to you

15 that:

16 "... Rosemary was very serious about a full and fair

17 investigation of the threats made against her since she

18 did fear for her safety."

19 Presumably, there was never going to be a full and

20 fair investigation, was there, unless she herself

21 cooperated with the investigation?

22 A. I don't agree with that. I mean, she had cooperated.

23 For example, she produced these statements of witnesses,

24 and I say at risk to themselves they produced it, and

25 she herself now, as you have demonstrated, came forward





1 in September 1997 and cooperated. The onus should not

2 be, in my humble opinion, on Rosemary for conducting the

3 investigation, the onus should be upon the proper

4 authorities in law enforcement, who are presented with a

5 prima facie case of intimidation and threats against

6 a member of the bar. It is then incumbent on them to

7 take steps, not to put the onus on the victim, which I

8 think is unfortunate. I have read some comments to that

9 effect. They are very unfortunate.

10 Q. Just returning to the question of the ICPC, you wrote to

11 them again, didn't you, on 17th July? We can see that

12 at RNI-114-068 (displayed). You told the deputy chief

13 executive, in the second paragraph, that:

14 "... the harassment, threats and attempted

15 intimidation have continued, and in fact have recently

16 become more sinister."

17 Now --

18 A. Sorry, Mr Phillips, as say, you know this better than I.

19 What document citation is this?

20 Q. It is on the screen. It is RNI-114-068.

21 A. The problem is when it is on the screen sometimes I do

22 not have the date. I like to see the date.

23 Q. Let us start with the date. I am not trying to rush

24 you. It is 17th July 1997.

25 A. Okay, I have that.





1 Q. The paragraph I wanted you to look at was the second

2 paragraph, beginning with the word "Unfortunately"?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you see what is set out there:

5 "... the harassment, threats and attempted

6 intimidation of Mrs Nelson have continued, and in fact

7 have recently become more sinister."

8 A. I do.

9 Q. What I wanted to ascertain from you is what it was that

10 you had learnt which made you believe that those things

11 had become more sinister?

12 A. Well, you also note on that same day, July 17th, 1997

13 I wrote to Jack Straw.

14 Q. Indeed.

15 A. RNI-114-070, and I said:

16 "My immediate concern is the safety of Mrs Nelson."

17 So some information had come to me that prompted me

18 to get out these letters in July of 1997.

19 Q. Yes. But the question is what was it?

20 A. I cannot tell you today and I do not have a document.

21 There is nothing that came to me from Rosemary. But I

22 can just repeat, Mr Phillips, I think -- I don't mean to

23 be rude by saying repeat, but there were several sources

24 of information that I was receiving. I think people

25 sent it to me just because they figured, well, I would





1 do something about it. It would from be Jean Forest,

2 Sharon Farrell, also Walt Pollard, he was the attorney

3 from Boston, and of course Rosemary herself. But I am

4 sorry, I can't tell you what prompted these two letters

5 but it must have been something significant because it

6 prompted me to write to Mr Straw and also to the ICPC.

7 Q. Let me ask you this --

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt, but when you got

9 information from Mr Pollard, Ms Farrell, Jean Forest,

10 Rosemary Nelson, did you make an attendance note,

11 because I assume these were phone calls, were they,

12 mainly?

13 A. Well, I would see Jean Forest and Sharon Farrell, both

14 of whom were in New Jersey, I would see them in person

15 on occasion if there were some types of events taking

16 place. I might see them in New York.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you make any contemporary notes?

18 A. I think not.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Right, thank you.

20 MR PHILLIPS: What I wanted to ask you, Mr Lynch, is whether

21 the event you describe at the bottom of this page might

22 have been in your mind when you made that comment.

23 A. Thank you, Mr Phillips. Probably, yes, that was the --

24 what took place on the Garvaghy Road. I should have

25 thought of that. There was a lot of publicity about





1 what had happened on the Garvaghy Road. I should also

2 note another source was Brendan Mac Cionnaith, whom

3 I knew and had met with, and he was in communication

4 with me. But, yes, that is probably it. I mean, pardon

5 me, that may be part of the evidence, the information

6 that triggered these letters on my part, July 17th,

7 1997.

8 Q. As I understand it, you weren't in Northern Ireland

9 in July 1997. Is that right?

10 A. That is right.

11 Q. I think you tell us in fact that you didn't attend any

12 of the Garvaghy Road marches during the 1990s.

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. The report, for example, the report we have looked at,

15 was written by your intern Kimberley Jones.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. So how did you learn about that incident on the

18 Garvaghy Road in 1997?

19 A. I think I saw a film of it. I think it was also --

20 I know I was friendly with Gerry Lally, who was also

21 from New Jersey, and there was a group in New York,

22 a group called the Irish Parades Emergency Committee

23 group that would go over during the marching season

24 every summer and -- this was a well publicised event,

25 what happened. The New York Times carried reports on





1 the confrontations at 1996/1997. I think 1997 may have

2 been when the British Army had become involved and --

3 from whatever source, this was a well publicised event

4 and particularly the fact that Rosemary was manhandled.

5 I have no personal knowledge of whether she was

6 manhandled, how she was manhandled, what injury she

7 suffered. I think there are other witnesses who have

8 addressed that, but I do not know.

9 MR PHILLIPS: Thank you.

10 Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, 2 o'clock.

12 MR DONALDSON: Before the Tribunal rise, may I just make an

13 observation about the skeleton argument? I am glad to

14 say it is almost ready and we expect to hand it to your

15 staff perhaps within the next 10 or 15 minutes, if that

16 is not inconvenient.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Donaldson.

18 MR DONALDSON: One other matter in relation to that is that

19 I would like to make some very brief -- and I would

20 emphasise "some very brief" -- oral comments at an

21 appropriate time which is convenient to the Tribunal.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Mr Donaldson, we will read the

23 skeleton argument over lunch, and upon the assumption

24 that we consider it right to ask you to make some oral

25 comments, those will be done hopefully at the end of





1 today's proceedings.

2 MR DONALDSON: Yes. There are some comments which I feel

3 that I must make, sir, if I may.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, right. Thank you very much,

5 Mr Donaldson.

6 (1.02 pm)

7 (The short adjournment)

8 (2.00 pm)

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Donaldson, we have read your submission

10 and the accompanying papers and we would like to hear

11 from you on any supplementary matters you wish to raise

12 with us, and it would be convenient if it were done now,

13 in the hope -- but this is not a promise -- that we will

14 be able to give our decision later today or at the

15 latest tomorrow morning.

16 Submissions by MR DONALDSON

17 MR DONALDSON: That would be very helpful, sir, thank you

18 very much.

19 As I did indicate, I have really very little to add.

20 I don't intend to repeat anything I have set out in the

21 skeleton argument because the skeleton argument is

22 rather fuller than a skeleton argument might be expected

23 to be. However, there are just a few matters.

24 Firstly, I must apologise for this, in relation to

25 paragraph 6(d), the last sentence, there is a reference





1 to a letter concerning criminal convictions. That

2 letter, our letter in fact, was dated 9th June.

3 Unfortunately it is not included, sir, in the papers

4 which were sent to you. We would be grateful -- in fact

5 we will get the letter; I have asked for copies to be

6 procured immediately and will pass them to your staff as

7 soon as they arrive, which will be very soon. We would

8 like some account to be taken of that, because a very

9 important part of any questioning of the witnesses by

10 ourselves would, in our submission, require some close

11 examination of the witness's credibility because

12 credibility is a very fundamental issue.

13 In respect of the 10 witnesses we have identified,

14 it is noteworthy too that some of those witnesses will

15 obviously not be giving evidence to the Inquiry and that

16 means that the material about which the matters they are

17 testifying to are contained in their statements, and

18 they will not be subject to any examination as to the

19 credibility of the complaints and allegations therein

20 contained.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Presumably your clients have the criminal

22 records of any witnesses who are going to be called or

23 whose evidence is going to be before the Inquiry.

24 MR DONALDSON: I am hoping so, sir, because certainly at

25 this stage we had ciphered names of some of those





1 people, ciphers for the names, and I think it may be

2 possible, I am hoping it may be possible, to obtain that

3 information. If so, we feel that it would be more in

4 keeping with the Inquiry if counsel for the PSNI could

5 do that questioning rather than counsel for the Inquiry,

6 Mr Phillips, who is acting in a more impartial way than

7 perhaps we would.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Why would it be necessary to question any

9 witness about his or her previous criminal convictions

10 if in fact the Inquiry is provided by your clients with

11 the criminal convictions, which of course can be taken

12 into account, if appropriate, by the Panel in

13 considering credibility?

14 MR DONALDSON: We feel, sir, that in any testing of

15 credibility, it is preferable that the witness should be

16 questioned about those matters. I suppose really one

17 comes from -- we all come from more of an adversarial

18 background. This is inquisitorial, I know, but I don't

19 think that that affects the principle, because the

20 principle here is one of credibility and I am sure the

21 Tribunal is interested in getting at the truth, and the

22 truth here is perhaps rather elusive, because in respect

23 of the clients of Rosemary Nelson, as a group, who are

24 making complaints and serious criminal allegations,

25 there is one -- those people are ranged on one side, the





1 police witnesses are ranged on the other side, and that

2 is really the only evidence you will have. It is very

3 important that we, therefore, have the opportunity to

4 question those witnesses closely on credibility.

5 It is not just, sir, entirely a matter of criminal

6 records. There are other matters, about inconsistencies

7 and so forth, and there are quite a range of matters

8 relating, for example, to motivation in perhaps telling

9 untruths or making false allegations for other purposes.

10 So it is really quite a complicated picture.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: The Panel is not naive. With regard to most

12 of these witnesses, it is clear what their general

13 background is.

14 MR DONALDSON: Well, perhaps we don't know everything yet,

15 sir. In fact, that is what questioning is about. It is

16 very often --

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you seriously suggesting that, for

18 example, a conviction for a public order offence would

19 be relevant on a question of credibility?

20 MR DONALDSON: I don't think I have suggested that, sir, and

21 I am not suggesting that.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Or even certain crimes of violence.

23 MR DONALDSON: That depends on the type of violence. There

24 is one example I can think of here, which I will not

25 perhaps draw attention to at the moment, where it would





1 be very important. But, generally, I would accept that

2 if someone assaulted his neighbour in the street, that

3 may not be a matter of great import on the whole picture

4 of credibility, but there are here some of these people

5 have, as I understand it, convictions for terrorist-type

6 offences and that, of course, is very relevant to the

7 matter of motivation and --

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Motivation is a different matter from

9 credibility, isn't it?

10 MR DONALDSON: Motivation to tell lies, sir, to put it quite

11 bluntly. A motivation to make false allegations.

12 I wouldn't suggest for one moment that a Panel as

13 experienced as this is in any way naive, but I think we

14 are not, I think, in possession necessarily of all the

15 facts. I think matters of credibility can be more

16 readily demonstrated, and I hope not in a discourteous

17 way, but it is possible, coming from the position of

18 counsel on behalf of the PSNI, who would perhaps be

19 seeing it through different eyes from the impartial gaze

20 of Mr Phillips.

21 I have, by the way, the letters that have been

22 handed to me, sir. May I just hand them in now? At

23 least I hope I have them. Yes, here we are. (Handed).

24 Thank you. I don't think I need ask the Tribunal to

25 look at that correspondence at the moment. May I just





1 complete what I would like to say?

2 There is an important matter which is not -- it is

3 in fact attached to one of witness questions and lines

4 of enquiry. We didn't, of course, want to pre-empt the

5 decision of the Inquiry, so we did in the usual way

6 furnish questions and lines of enquiry for the two

7 witnesses only at this stage. But you will see a fairly

8 lengthy paragraph of some 12 lines or so at the

9 conclusion of each of those. They are identical. They

10 do encapsulate an important part of our argument.


12 MR DONALDSON: It may not have come to your attention.

13 I apologise, we only had a short time to look at it.


15 MR DONALDSON: Of course, the grounds we set forth in

16 a letter, which you have too, we set forth the grounds

17 of our application in some detail and we have elaborated

18 these in rather more detail in the final paragraph of

19 our submissions at paragraph 9.

20 Finally, sir, we would like to say that in relation

21 to this matter of questioning the witnesses, especially

22 these witnesses, I think it will already be fairly

23 obvious to the Tribunal what our concern is, but there

24 is another concern which has been expressed strongly to

25 us by our client and that is that it is the perception





1 among the police, and among all of these people who are

2 involved, and there are quite a number, that in fact it

3 may well be unfair to them if it is not seen that the

4 PSNI counsel are permitted to question closely their

5 accusers.

6 It might be said, well, Mr Phillips could do this,

7 and I am sure he could, but I think the reasons which we

8 have indicated are that this is something perhaps, in

9 these circumstances, more appropriate and the interests

10 and fairness and the perception of police officers that

11 that should be done by counsel for the PSNI.

12 That is all I wish to say at the present, sir,

13 unless there are any further points arising.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. We will adjourn

15 for a couple of minutes to allow Mr Lynch to return to

16 the witness table. We will give our decision in due

17 course, hopefully either tonight or tomorrow morning.

18 MR DONALDSON: Thank you, sir.

19 (2.14 pm)

20 (Short break )

21 (2.15 pm)

22 MR EDMUND LYNCH (continued)

23 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr Lynch, we cut that in but

24 I hope you will understand.

25 A. Certainly.






2 Questions by MR PHILLIPS (continued)

3 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Lynch, can I ask you to look, please, at

4 RNI-812-077, which is paragraph 45 of your statement

5 (displayed). Can we enlarge it, please? Thanks. Do

6 you see the last complete sentence of the page:

7 "As at 17th July 1997 the RUC's threats made through

8 Mr C1378 ..."

9 It is the ciphered name of a client:

10 "... had also been drawn to our attention."

11 Can you help me please, how had that client's case

12 been drawn to your attention?

13 A. I think that came from Ms Nelson. I know the person you

14 are referring to. It is a very short statement that I

15 am familiar with.

16 Q. Might it be right that the statement first reached you

17 at the end of October/beginning of November 1997?

18 A. Can you direct me to the statement itself? That will

19 help.

20 Q. Yes, the letter to you is RNI-114-099.501 (displayed).

21 Do you see that? It is on the screen.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. October 29th. To you.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. From Rosemary Nelson.





1 A. I don't think that is the statement referred to.

2 Q. Well, it says:

3 "I refer to previous correspondence and enclose for

4 your information copes of further statements made

5 by ..."

6 Then he is one of the ciphered names.

7 A. Is it not permissible to mention that individual?

8 Q. No. Can you look over, please, to the next page, which

9 is one of the enclosures? It is his statement,

10 RNI-114-059.502 (displayed).

11 A. Okay. You are correct, Mr Phillips. I was thinking of

12 a much shorter statement from an another witness.

13 Q. Right. Do you see the statement itself is dated

14 27th October?

15 A. Right.

16 Q. So clearly whatever you saw or whatever you learnt

17 in July, and you say it had been drawn to your

18 attention, it can't have been this statement, can it?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. So the question I had for you is: how did you hear about

21 this particular case involving this client and threats

22 made via him?

23 A. Well, it may be that this date is incorrect, this "as

24 of July 17th, 1997". It may be just that I used it an

25 incorrect date.





1 Q. Thank you. So far as your approach to these matters is

2 concerned, when you received these statements -- and

3 there are a number of them as we see, at the beginning

4 of November -- did you yourself take any steps to assess

5 the validity of the complaints that were being made in

6 these statements?

7 A. I examined them and tested them for inherent

8 credibility, but I did not. We had no ability to

9 conduct any independent investigation in

10 Northern Ireland.

11 Q. So far as the complaints investigation itself is

12 concerned, we can see, if we look at RNI-114-073

13 (displayed) that you were informed by the RUC in August

14 that the complaint, the matter, had been investigated as

15 far as practicable. Do you see that in the second

16 paragraph?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you, in the papers sent to the ICPC. What was

19 your reaction to receiving that letter about your

20 complaint?

21 A. Well, my reaction is the next page, my reply, which is

22 RNI-114-074, and basically I was saying: what do you

23 mean by this, "as far as practical"? What does this

24 mean? And I of course went further, as you are aware.

25 Q. You raised various possibilities here. Did you offer





1 Mrs Nelson confidentiality? Did you agree to provide

2 security and protection against reprisal? And did you

3 solicit the assistance of an independent investigator?

4 Do you see that in the third --

5 A. I do.

6 Q. Thank you. Was this something that you discussed with

7 Rosemary Nelson before you sent this letter, do you

8 think?

9 A. I do not think so. I think I sent this on my own.

10 Q. So the proposals about confidentiality, security,

11 protection, et cetera, were things that you raised

12 without having first discussed them with her?

13 A. Right, but I did copy her on that.

14 Q. Yes. Thank you.

15 In due course you received a response to your letter

16 to the Home Secretary, in fact not from him or his

17 department but from the NIO. We can see that at

18 RNI-114-075 (displayed). Do you see at the bottom of

19 this page, the paragraph beginning "First ..." the

20 author is taking up the point about attending the police

21 station?

22 A. I didn't hear that.

23 Q. The author is taking up the point about attending the

24 police station, about Mrs Nelson attending the police

25 station. Do you remember the point we saw before?





1 A. I see that.

2 Q. Thank you. You are being told in the last sentences:

3 "The interview would have been in the presence of a

4 member of the Independent Commission for Police

5 Complaints."

6 Was that something you were already aware of, do you

7 think?

8 A. I am not sure, but I did think that would materially

9 change the nature of the interview.

10 Q. So you didn't think the involvement of the ICPC member

11 enhanced the credibility of the complaints

12 investigation?

13 A. I wouldn't go that far, Mr Phillips. Quite truthfully,

14 I was not familiar with the Independent Commission's

15 work. I don't think that they had a track record, they

16 were relatively new, and truthfully I did not understand

17 why there was this insistence by the Government

18 representatives on keeping the RUC involved in this

19 matter. I would think that the RUC would prefer not to

20 be involved because it creates an inherent conflict of

21 interest and that they would have preferred, if they

22 wanted to get to the bottom of it, to have an

23 independent agency come in.

24 Q. But this was a point that the author dealt with, wasn't

25 it, on the next page, RNI-114-076 (displayed) in the





1 second paragraph? Do you see the first words are:

2 "The second point ..."

3 This was the specific point you had raised, which

4 was then being dealt with.

5 A. I think you have now released the name of the author of

6 this; correct?

7 Q. I can't in fact offhand remember, I am afraid. Yes, we

8 have.

9 A. Okay, so this is Mr Rogers, Simon Rogers.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I think I met with him at some time in one of my visits.

12 I respected him but I just fundamentally disagreed with

13 their position that -- particularly as it turned out,

14 the ultimate -- the investigation by Miss McNally of the

15 ICPC was undercut by the RUC, the way they responded to

16 her. So this really didn't convince me that the RUC

17 should be investigating itself, and again I go back to

18 the question: why did they want to do this? Why

19 wouldn't they have relinquished control to an

20 independent agency, for their own interests, because

21 whatever would come out of an investigation by an

22 independent body would be much more credible.

23 Q. Can we go back to the top of this page and enlarge the

24 first paragraph, please? This is a paragraph setting

25 out interview arrangements and the fact that Mrs Nelson





1 didn't make the appointments. I take it from what you

2 said to you us earlier that this must have been news to

3 you when you received it in September 1997?

4 A. That what? What would have been news to me?

5 Q. That arrangements had been made for interview but she

6 hadn't turned up.

7 A. I don't think so. I think I have to make it clear. I

8 was not investigating Rosemary's dealing with this

9 problem. So this wouldn't have struck me as something

10 upsetting or unusual. It is obvious she was ambivalent

11 about this. At one point it looks like she was going to

12 go ahead with the interview. Then her reception said

13 she would not be attending. I think it is quite clear

14 that she was torn between what to do about this

15 situation. We in America, we were just one aspect of

16 the entire situation. So I was not particularly

17 surprised by this.

18 Q. If we go down to the bottom of the page and enlarge the

19 last paragraph, this is the point the author is making,

20 isn't it? We can't have an effective investigation if

21 Mrs Nelson is not prepared to cooperate. That is

22 a valid point, isn't it?

23 A. I think it is not a valid point. We are working in

24 a circle here -- not you, Mr Phillips, but this whole

25 process. It sort of begs the point here, if we go back





1 and Mr Rogers is telling me: you, Mrs Nelson and

2 Mr Lynch and everybody else, you must accept our ground

3 rules, namely the investigation will be conducted by the

4 RUC, ergo if she doesn't participate in our

5 investigation, under our rules, what can we do, she is

6 not cooperating.

7 That is what actually happened here, and I gather

8 from some counsel it is still being argued today. But I

9 think that premises the fact, it premises the point that

10 there would be confidence in an RUC investigation,

11 whether it was being supervised by somebody else, and

12 that was directly contrary to Rosemary's history with

13 the RUC and the history of many other attorneys,

14 lawyers, in Northern Ireland, who had also been

15 threatened, who had also received this negative

16 propaganda from the RUC. So I think this is a circular

17 argument, as much as I respect Mr Rogers, but we were

18 sort of talking different points here.

19 Q. If we see at RNI-114-076.500, which is your letter of

20 27th September, when you got the NIO letter, you say you

21 referred it to Rosemary Nelson for comments. Do you see

22 that?

23 A. I am sorry, I do not have 500. I have got 501.

24 Q. It is on the screen.

25 A. Okay.





1 Q. Second paragraph. You say:

2 "I have referred the same to Mrs Nelson ... as far

3 as I ascertain her position, I will be in touch ..."

4 A. I was asking them to keep this matter open.

5 Q. Presumably you spoke to her?

6 A. I think so. I must have -- I am certain I sent --

7 whatever I got from the ICPC or Mr Rogers I sent on.

8 Q. If we look at your full response, it is at

9 RNI-114-076.506.pdf">RNI-114-076.506 (displayed). This is a letter --

10 A. I have it.

11 Q. It is on the screen. This is a letter back from you to

12 Mr Rogers. The first thing I wanted to ask you about it

13 is this: it says in the first line:

14 "We enclose herein report and press release ..."

15 Dealing with this very briefly, the press release is

16 the one we have been through together, isn't it?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. The report is the report you have already mentioned, and

19 it is a report compiled by Kimberley Jones, your intern,

20 and it concerns the marching season and the policing of

21 the marching season.

22 A. Can I clarify a bit? Miss Jones was not my sole intern.

23 She was a graduate law student in New York City. I

24 think the way we referred to her was legal intern, but

25 it wasn't as if she was doing projects for me or for the





1 Lawyers Alliance. Certain projects she did do, very

2 competent researcher. She was a law graduate. I think

3 she received her degree from the City University of

4 New York as at this point, but having said that, I can

5 try to answer your next question.

6 Q. Can we just focus on the content of the report just in

7 very brief summary. Do you agree that the report was

8 concerned with the policing of the marches in 1995, 1996

9 and 1997?

10 A. I do, yes, I do.

11 Q. Thank you. Well, if we turn back to your letter, which

12 is on the screen, you say in the second paragraph:

13 "Once you have read this report, I am sure you can

14 understand the reluctance of Ms Nelson and others to

15 express confidence in the investigative authority of the

16 RUC."

17 First of all, there was no reference to

18 Rosemary Nelson herself in the report, was there?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Did the report touch on the investigative authority of

21 the RUC?

22 A. Well, it was entitled, "A report upon the conduct of the

23 Royal Ulster Constabulary". Case histories upon the

24 violation of the international covenant on civil and

25 political rights by the Royal Ulster Constabulary during





1 the marching season of 1995, 1996 and 1997. It did

2 not -- this was not an analysis of the RUC complaints

3 system, that is correct.

4 Q. It had nothing to do with the RUC complaints system, did

5 it?

6 A. I don't necessarily agree. If you read this report and

7 you understand what went on and, quite directly, the

8 beatings of unarmed civilians by riot police, I don't

9 think it would be reasonable to suggest that someone

10 should trust that force, since those folks had not

11 been -- those riot police had not been disciplined and

12 have not been disciplined, to my knowledge, to the

13 present, down some 11 years. I think it was fair to

14 conclude that there would be no confidence in the

15 investigative authority of this body.

16 That is my conclusion. Others may disagree, but

17 that was the reason I said this. I thought perhaps I

18 can convince Mr Rogers, who may not know about this and

19 didn't have this report, there is another side to the

20 conduct of the RUC which he may not know about, and that

21 is why I sent it. I wasn't giving an in-depth analysis

22 of the investigative functions of the RUC.

23 Q. But the connection you make between the report and the

24 reluctance of Mrs Nelson and others, was that

25 a connection that she herself had made in your





1 discussion with her?

2 A. Could you repeat that, please?

3 Q. In your letter you make a connection between the

4 reluctance of Mrs Nelson and others and the report

5 itself. Was that a point that she herself had made to

6 you?

7 A. Well, Rosemary had made it clear she did not have

8 confidence in the investigative authority or actually

9 the ability of the RUC to police itself. One of her

10 letters, do you see, was sort of a tongue-in-cheek,

11 where in her letter of May 21st, 1997, she says:

12 "Dear Edmund,

13 "The RUC intends investigating the RUC in this

14 instance?"

15 It was pretty clear to me that Rosemary did not have

16 confidence that the very body that members of were

17 threatening and insulting her, not just once or twice

18 but a period of time, months, months, that in some way

19 they would turn round and investigate itself. She

20 didn't have that confidence, and nor did I.

21 Q. Do you think you knew at the time you wrote this letter

22 on October 16th, 1997 that she had already been

23 interviewed?

24 A. I don't know. I am not sure whether I did or did not

25 know. My best testimony would be I don't think I knew





1 specifically that she had been interviewed, but I don't

2 think -- you know, it might have been just she was going

3 to give it one last try to see if hopefully something

4 would come of it. But, as we know, nothing did come

5 of it.

6 Q. In the third paragraph you refer to reports of

7 harassment. How had they reached you?

8 A. Probably through Jean Forest and Sharon Farrell. I said

9 earlier today I had met Colin Duffy and I had been to

10 his home and met his wife and his child. I don't think

11 he communicated directly to me after that. I know

12 Mrs Duffy was in communication with Jean Forest and I

13 think there was a close communication back and forth

14 between Mrs Duffy and Jean Forest, and Jean would -- if

15 Jean Forest got something of -- she thought significant,

16 she would ring me up. If she didn't get me the first

17 time, she would ring me a second time until she got me

18 or she would send me a fax. So probably that would have

19 been the source: from Jean Forest.

20 Q. Not from Rosemary Nelson herself?

21 A. I can't say, Mr Phillips, really, but I would just

22 safely say that this -- my letters would be prompted by

23 incoming information. Keep in mind I was a practising

24 lawyer, I had a full schedule and I would not just idly

25 have time on my hands to write letters to





1 Northern Ireland.

2 Q. In due course we can see that there was a response from

3 the RUC to your report, and that is at RNI-114-118.500.

4 Can we have that on the screen, please (displayed)?

5 Thanks. Can we enlarge the text?

6 This letter is dated 19th December. It has been

7 enlarged for you on the screen.

8 A. I have got the letter here. Your assistant was kind

9 enough to put everything into chronological, numerical

10 order, so now I can follow it. I have it.

11 Q. Good. You will remember in this letter there is

12 a detailed critique, if I can put it that way, of the

13 report, which goes over to the next page, for us on the

14 screen that is RNI-114-118.501 (displayed).

15 One of the themes of the letter is a lack of balance

16 in the report. Did you accept any of the criticisms

17 that were made?

18 A. Mr Phillips, I don't know whether it would be

19 productive -- it is productive to engage in a debate

20 back and forth about the RUC conduct with parades. I am

21 not obviously setting the rules in this Inquiry but it

22 seems pretty far removed from what is here before us

23 about Rosemary Nelson.

24 I mean, I responded to this. This was oftentimes

25 the response when we would get. When we would submit





1 a document or when we would meet with the officials at

2 Stormont or elsewhere, invariably they would accuse us

3 of being unbalanced. In our early years it would always

4 be suggested that we were providing cover for the

5 terrorists or any type of contention or position we

6 would take on Diplock courts, jury trial, right to

7 counsel. The stock answer was, "You are unbalanced, you

8 are supporting the terrorists". Which I never accepted,

9 as we knew we were not, obviously, supporting

10 terrorists.

11 I am not prepared now to go through this letter and

12 point out what I think are its shortcomings, unless you

13 insist.

14 Q. No. I wasn't intending to get into the detail.

15 A. There are shortcomings. Okay.

16 There are things said here which I agree with.

17 Policing in a divided society such as ours is not

18 simple. No one would argue with that. All that we ask

19 is that people take a long hard look at the realities,

20 put aside their preconceptions and consider the

21 alternatives.

22 This was written in December 1997. I had been

23 coming here since 1991. I had seen the realities on the

24 ground in west Belfast and Derry and Tyrone. I think

25 the realities were that some members of the force were





1 out of control and they had a sectarian mindset, and you

2 have -- all these reports we have could not have been

3 manufactured. So Mr Rogers and I were not talking about

4 the same police force, as far as I could see. Either

5 I knew nothing and was some way blinded or he was really

6 not in touch with what the community felt, and that is

7 what Patten said.

8 Patten said that among a large portion of the

9 minority community the RUC was looked upon not as

10 a protector but as the enemy, as a body that was

11 oppressing. So that is why I say I really -- I didn't

12 think it would be productive to go back and forth with

13 Mr Simon Rogers.

14 Q. No, well, this is a letter not from the NIO but from the

15 Chief Constable's office, do you see?

16 A. I am sorry. Actually, I did enjoy some of my exchanges

17 with Mr Rogers. We don't have the name but I am sure

18 I recognise -- right, this was a response. I sent him

19 Miss Jones' report. Obviously he was not happy with

20 that, but the point was it had dates, places, names of

21 people, what happened to them, beatings,

22 Altnagelvin Hospital, the outrages that took place there

23 in Derry. His response was a very general response. He

24 didn't address the cases we had cited, as if they didn't

25 exist.





1 Q. I think what you did in response to this letter was to

2 propose a meeting with the Chief Constable. Isn't that

3 right?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. We can see that in your letter of 5th January,

6 RNI-114-120. I will get that up on the screen for you

7 (displayed).

8 A. I have that, thank you.

9 Q. Thank you. You say you are pleased he studied your

10 report in considerable depth and:

11 "You seem to have taken a personal affront to the

12 detailed factual findings and conclusions drawn in the

13 report."

14 Then you go on in the next paragraph, don't you, to

15 talk about Rosemary Nelson's case and the continuing

16 abuse, and at the very bottom of this page you make

17 a suggestion and that is that during the visit already

18 arranged, I think, of your delegation in February, you

19 should have a meeting with the Chief Constable.

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. As I understand it, the purpose of the meeting -- and

22 this is the last sentence of the page -- was to engage

23 in an "open discussion of the issues addressed in our

24 report".

25 Is that right?





1 A. "... and your response to the same."

2 Q. Exactly. So, as I understand it, you seized on the

3 response from the Superintendent to suggest a discussion

4 about the issues raised in the report and the RUC's

5 response to it.

6 A. As well as, as I point out in the second paragraph:

7 "Perhaps you would choose to follow up directly with

8 the chief inspector concerning harassment by members of

9 the RUC of Lurgan solicitor Rosemary Nelson. This

10 continuing abuse has been documented by numerous

11 statements of witnesses. To date no discipline has been

12 imposed upon the perpetrators of this outrageous

13 behaviour."

14 Okay? So we gave notice on January 5th that

15 Rosemary Nelson was on the agenda of the meeting with

16 the Chief Constable.

17 Q. I see. So in this third paragraph you say you are

18 setting out another point to be discussed at the meeting

19 you refer to at the end of the page. Is that right?

20 A. Yes, but our meetings with the Chief Constable, and

21 indeed with the Lord Chief Justice, these were

22 open-ended meetings which -- the conversation would go

23 where it would and we weren't held to a pre-printed

24 agenda. All that we had to do, basically, was identify

25 who were the members of our group. Early on -- in the





1 early years we had to give social security numbers and

2 had to be cleared for security, but other than that

3 there was no agenda. But I take your point,

4 Mr Phillips, that we didn't lay out paragraphs 1, 2, 3

5 and 4 as to be discussed with the Chief Constable.

6 Q. Do you think he was expecting to discuss the case of

7 Rosemary Nelson at your meeting in February 1998?

8 A. I cannot speculate on what the Chief Constable was

9 expecting to discuss but I think, considering who we

10 were, you know, a group of lawyers, the fact that there

11 had been a record now and beginning in March of 1997 of

12 complaints about the way his people were treating

13 a solicitor, and the fact that my letter of January 5th,

14 1998 raises the subject of the abuse of Rosemary Nelson,

15 I would have hoped he would have that on his radar as

16 that is something that is going to come you up.

17 I wasn't at that meeting but I gather he was -- he

18 took a strong defence, he knew about this and so -- but

19 again, I wasn't at the meeting. I can't really

20 speculate what the Chief Constable had in his mind prior

21 to the meeting.

22 Q. Can I ask you about a meeting you were at, or

23 a gathering at any rate you were at during your visit

24 in February 1998? That is the dinner which you referred

25 to in paragraph 68 -- and that is RNI-812-085 at the





1 bottom of the page (displayed) -- a dinner on the

2 17th February at the Beresford Arms Hotel. The part of

3 the discussion that evening that I am interested in

4 obviously is that where Rosemary Nelson spoke. You deal

5 with that on the next page, at paragraph 71. That is

6 page RNI-086. Can we enlarge the bottom of the page,

7 please? (Displayed).

8 You say that she told you, the delegation, about the

9 threats against her and that they were continuing. Can

10 you remember whether she provided any details to you in

11 the course of her remarks on that evening?

12 A. Initially I think I made a few remarks, opening

13 statement, so to speak. We were in a private dining

14 room. We had already eaten and most the people knew

15 Rosemary Nelson in our group or knew who she was, and

16 I introduced her and made some remarks. I think I may

17 have mentioned that she was carrying on the tradition of

18 Pat Finucane. Then Rosemary spoke and it wasn't all

19 about Rosemary. Rosemary, as many of the witnesses have

20 said, was interested in her clients. This was sort of a

21 distraction, these personal attacks on her. She spoke

22 about the Hamill case and she spoke about the

23 Garvaghy Road, her clients, and that always stays with

24 me, now long after she's gone, that stays with me, that

25 despite the threats against her, she was speaking to





1 these American lawyers, Judge Patrick Henry and others,

2 on behalf of her clients. I think I mentioned in my

3 statement she made such an impression on Justice

4 Patrick Henry of the New York State Supreme Court that

5 he went back home to Suffolk County and organised a

6 campaign and had a big dinner of policemen and firemen

7 out in Suffolk County, which I attended, and he raised

8 money for the Robert Hamill justice campaign.

9 So to answer your question, she did speak about her

10 case. I think she mentioned -- I can't recall the

11 words -- about the fact that her clients -- the RUC were

12 still issuing threats and abusive remarks through her

13 clients. In the public session she didn't, to my

14 recollection, identify her clients, and she would never

15 have named a client by name in a semi-public forum like

16 that.

17 The meeting then broke up and there were different

18 people chatting and talking, and I don't think I was in

19 that small group that was talking with Rosemary. I know

20 that Tom Burke was, I think Patrick Henry was, and then

21 we had to head out of Lurgan that night and get down to

22 Belfast.

23 That is my best recollection. We said goodbye to

24 Rosemary, and of course we agreed to keep in touch.

25 That is my best recollection of the evening.





1 Q. In paragraph 74 at RNI-812-087 (displayed), at the top

2 of the page you say in the last sentence:

3 "However, it was clear that the threats were now

4 getting stronger."

5 Is that something you remember hearing for yourself

6 from her that evening?

7 A. Well, reading the last sentence:

8 "It is clear that the perpetrators knew where

9 Rosemary lived, had her contact details and felt secure

10 enough to call her personally on the telephone."

11 So obviously Rosemary told us -- I believe told our

12 whole group -- that she had gotten threatening phone

13 call or calls -- I am not sure whether it was singular

14 or plural -- at her home. That really worried me,

15 because I had been at her home, I had met her husband

16 Paul and her three children, and I had children. It

17 just really concerned me that now they were going even

18 further. You know, it is one thing to deal with

19 a person at the office, but now they are going after her

20 at home. That was a very, very worrying development.

21 Q. In your statement you say, just a sentence above that,

22 you can't recall:

23 "... whether Rosemary told me this directly or

24 whether I learnt of it through Jean Forest."

25 Is that the true position?





1 A. Yes, it is. I think Rosemary did mention it in her

2 remarks but if I didn't learn it from Rosemary, I am

3 sure that Jean Forest would have brought it to my

4 attention.

5 Q. Thank you. Just one other thing on this dinner meeting.

6 If we go back to paragraph 72 you say there, which is on

7 RNI-812-086 (displayed) at the bottom, you say there

8 that during the dinner you told Rosemary Nelson that you

9 would be meeting with the Chief Constable. You record

10 her as saying she thought this was good work but didn't

11 think we were going to get much from him. Do you

12 remember her saying anything else to you about the

13 meeting with the Chief Constable?

14 A. I do not. It wasn't as if she was giving us any

15 direction at that meeting. She thought it was good that

16 we were going to be able to see the Chief Constable but

17 other than that, I don't recall any specific direction.

18 Q. So far as the meeting with the Chief Constable is

19 concerned, you didn't attend, as you pointed out.

20 A. I did not.

21 Q. Did the group have an agreed agenda for the meeting with

22 the Chief Constable?

23 A. I think sort of an informal agreement. I recall, when

24 we were divvying up who was to go where, there was

25 sort -- the Chief Constable was a popular destination.





1 So I felt -- I had been to Northern Ireland many times

2 and I would be back again, but some of the folks

3 there -- I think Patrick Henry -- no, Patrick Henry

4 wanted to come with me to see the Lord Chief Justice.

5 John Farrell, I think this might be his first trip.

6 In any event, we did have a discussion, either that

7 morning before -- we were all sort of staying in the

8 same area. There are some bed and breakfasts out by the

9 university. There was some discussion but it was very

10 clear that those who were going to meet with the

11 Chief Constable were going to raise the issue of the

12 safety of Rosemary Nelson, and I particularly was happy

13 that John Farrell was going. I felt sort of like I was

14 selecting my team to send into the big match, and

15 Mr Farrell is a very forceful trial attorney and

16 Walt Pollard is a -- more of a details man, and I knew

17 Walt had chapter and verse on what had taken place.

18 Jean Forest was going and Jean, of course, was very well

19 versed in what had been happening to Rosemary. So --

20 and there were other things on the agenda too. I give

21 credit to the Chief Constable. He was willing to hear

22 whatever we brought up. There was nothing off limits in

23 our meetings. The problem was, of course, response and

24 follow-up.

25 Q. Can I just ask to you look at paragraph 76, which is the





1 bottom of RNI-812-087 (displayed)? You said:

2 "I do recall discussing with the group ..."

3 Do you see that?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. It reads over the page, the first line and a half of

6 RNI-812-088 (displayed). Is that a fair summary, as you

7 recall it, of what you agreed as your aim in relation to

8 Rosemary Nelson at this meeting?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can I ask you about another meeting during your visit in

11 1998? Do you recall a meeting with officials from the

12 NIO?

13 A. I do.

14 Q. Now, can you look, please, at RNI-114-122 (displayed)?

15 You were present at that meeting, I think, weren't you?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you remember taking, if I can put it this way,

18 a leading part in the discussion?

19 A. Just let me get to that, Mr Phillips.

20 Q. Sorry, it is on the screen again.

21 A. Okay. Oh, so this is a note from the NIO --

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. -- to the --

24 Q. The RUC?

25 A. Summarising the meeting.





1 Q. As I understand it, yes.

2 A. Your question, did I take a leading part?

3 Q. Yes. Do you remember taking a leading part in the

4 meeting?

5 A. I think, by my best recollection, my role in a lot of

6 these meetings was more of a moderator. I didn't want

7 to dominate the discussion, if I can put it that way, as

8 strange as that may sound coming from a lawyer, but my

9 purpose was to get as many people who were knowledgeable

10 and interested on a subject together, engage in an

11 interchange with the personnel from the Government, NIO,

12 whomever, always remain polite, not personally

13 insulting. This is one thing which we did emphasise.

14 Not to just sit there and accept the platitudes which

15 initially, in the early 1990s, the concept of the NIO

16 people was that the American lawyers would come and sit

17 and listen like good school children to the explanation

18 of what really was going on in Northern Ireland, but

19 after a couple of meetings they understood that that

20 wasn't working too well, that modus operandi.

21 So I couldn't say whether I was a lead person. I

22 don't think this person says that, does he?

23 Q. No.

24 A. So I must not have made much of an impression in that

25 meeting.





1 Q. Do you remember recording your deep concern or the

2 delegation recording its deep concern over the safety of

3 Rosemary Nelson?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. What was the response of the officials? Can you

6 remember in fact at this distance of time?

7 A. I think they were receptive. I don't think we got

8 a commitment as to what would be done but, you know,

9 truthfully -- I did not take notes at these meetings.

10 Usually the representative of the RUC or the NIO would

11 take copious notes, but I was not a great note-taker and

12 I really do not recall -- I just have a general

13 recollection that we were not rebuffed. We were not

14 told that it is none of our business or anything like

15 that. I think it was generally receptive. That is

16 reflected in the fact that the author of this document

17 is communicating concerns, saying:

18 "... I thought I should write to pass them on ..."

19 It might be prudent to consider whether or not she needs

20 to be approached and given advice on her security."

21 Q. Yes. Was the question of her security then something

22 discussed in the meeting, as you recall?

23 A. Right. My recollection was put not in terms of security

24 so much as in danger, Mrs Nelson is in danger or she is

25 in a dangerous situation. Those are the words that





1 still stay with me all these years later.

2 Q. Did the officials say that they would pass those

3 concerns on?

4 A. I tend to think they did, but I couldn't say exactly

5 that was a commitment on their part. But I do think

6 they were receptive, my recollection is. It was

7 something -- and would you happen to know who we met

8 with up there at the NIO?

9 Q. I think that Mr Rogers was one of them.

10 A. Right. I have a favour --

11 Q. And the other person was Christine Collins.

12 A. I remember Mr Rogers. I know the witness shouldn't ask

13 the lawyer questions here.

14 Simon Rogers, I remember him to be a responsive

15 person, someone to engage in dialogue. I think we got

16 a commitment from him that he was someone who was going

17 to do something, it wasn't going to be just a kind of

18 say so or just a nice talk and move on.

19 Q. Thank you. The next thing I wanted to raise with you is

20 a comment you make in paragraph 81 of your statement,

21 RNI-812-089 (displayed). This is where you say that

22 Mrs Nelson wrote to you on 26th March and then you say:

23 "... concerning Colin Duffy and it was at this time

24 she informed me of the posters around Lurgan stating

25 that Colin Duffy was public enemy number one."





1 The reason I wanted to ask you about this is really

2 to check that we have got the right documents.

3 A. Well, as of this morning we have the right documents.

4 Q. Yes, exactly. But, so everybody else can be clear, we

5 can see the letter from Rosemary Nelson to you, at

6 RNI-114-122.502 (displayed). That is the letter of

7 26th March. If we can put that on the left-hand side of

8 the screen, please. The document which has been

9 exhibited to your statement is the next page, which is

10 RNI-122.503 (displayed). Could you just have a look at

11 that, please? That is not, at least not principally,

12 a leaflet about Mr Duffy but about Mr Mac Cionnaith.

13 Can you look then, if we can have in place of that

14 leaflet, please, RNI-101-263.502 (displayed). Do you

15 think that is in fact the leaflet that was sent to you?

16 A. My best judgment today is that the second leaflet,

17 namely the one having the picture of Colin Duffy, would

18 have been attached. It really didn't occur to me until

19 associate counsel was kind enough to point it out. The

20 reason I think that is correct is because Rosemary would

21 not refer to Brendan Mac Cionnaith as her client. Her

22 client would have been the Garvaghy Road Community or

23 Citizens Association, the residents. You see in the

24 cover letter she is writing to me saying:

25 "Dear sir,





1 "My client -- Colin Duffy."

2 I think it would be this one, Mr Phillips. Thank

3 you for pointing it out.

4 Q. Not at all. We can see a fax reference in the top

5 left-hand corner of the document on the right-hand side

6 of 26th March. It looks as if it is coming originally

7 from British Irish Rights Watch.

8 Turning on through to the summer, you tell us in

9 your statement about the news reaching you, I think,

10 in July -- this is paragraph 84 at RNI-812-090

11 (displayed) -- of the appointment of

12 Commander Mulvihill. Do you see that in the middle --

13 A. I do, yes.

14 Q. -- of the page?

15 A. Yes, I do.

16 Q. In due course you made a request, I think, didn't you,

17 to be present during some of the interviews which were

18 being conducted by the Mulvihill team?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. In paragraph 87 you talk about one particular aspect of

21 the Mulvihill investigation and your role in it, which

22 is to try to persuade Mr Duffy and certain other clients

23 to cooperate. It is a history that goes on for a little

24 while, but the net result was that -- if I can put it

25 this way -- some did and some did not.





1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Mr Duffy, of the ones we have listed here, did, I think,

3 as did C220, but I think I am right in saying that the

4 other ciphers here, 206 and 128, did not?

5 A. It should be noted that Rosemary was attempting to

6 persuade those other witnesses to come forward. I

7 didn't deal directly with those witnesses but one of the

8 suggestions I made to Commander Mulvihill was that he

9 come out or his member of his team from London come out

10 to Lurgan and interview these witnesses at Rosemary's

11 office, where I thought there would be a much more

12 likely chance that they would cooperate. But he

13 rejected that. He never told me why he rejected that

14 but he did not agree to do that.

15 Q. I want to summarise this and I hope I am doing so

16 fairly. You were, as a result of your experience,

17 attending for interviews, sitting in on the sessions.

18 You were impressed, weren't you, by the professionalism

19 of the Mulvihill team?

20 A. I was.

21 Q. You wrote to tell them so and we can just look at that,

22 please. RNI-114-143 (displayed).

23 A. Page 114, okay.

24 Q. It is on the screen again.

25 A. I see that.





1 Q. This is presumably based on what you yourself had

2 observed in the course of the interviews you had

3 attended?

4 A. Yes, and I had met his team of detectives. There were

5 either three or four, and they seemed to me to be very

6 professional policemen from London. They were not part

7 of any grouping within Northern Ireland. As I say:

8 "I was impressed with the professionalism and

9 competence of you and your team."

10 But then I add my "however". A true test, as I note

11 there, would be "the efficacy of the endeavour will be

12 the product".

13 Q. Now, we know in the end that Commander Mulvihill did not

14 uphold the complaints that had been made. That is

15 correct, isn't it?

16 A. Well, that was a concern I had. I believed, and I think

17 Rosemary believed, that at the end of the day when

18 Mr Mulvihill -- Commander Mulvihill rendered his report,

19 that we, being the complainants, would get a copy of his

20 report. In fact, I remember I was at the airport at

21 Aldergrove, leaving to go back to the United States, and

22 he and his team were there and we were in the departure

23 lounge and I wished them well, thanked them and urged

24 them to carry through and how important it was, or words

25 to this effect, and then something to the effect, "I





1 will be looking forward to seeing the report".

2 I never received that report. I think somewhere

3 recently, as part of this Inquiry or perhaps

4 Justice Cory's preliminary inquiry, I may have seen it,

5 but I think if you say that is correct, that whatever he

6 upheld or did not uphold, I think basically he was

7 critical of the demeanour of certain of the police

8 officers, RUC, or perhaps that was the ICPC was critical

9 of the demeanour, but to my knowledge he never got to

10 the meat of the matter. In other words, he never got

11 out --

12 I wrote a critique after this and I thought made a

13 pretty strong case that these witnesses were credible.

14 They were consistent, their testimony was not

15 manufactured. They did so at their risk. You know,

16 Colin Duffy, of course, had a previous experience when

17 his colleague, Sam Marshall, was murdered receiving the

18 Lurgan police station in 1990, and yet he came forward

19 to Belfast.

20 We have that other witness whose name is blacked out

21 but a man with no Republican, no terrorist background

22 whatsoever. He was hauled in and he made a very short

23 statement identifying when he was interrogated and what

24 was said. That witness didn't have -- a death threat

25 was not made through him, but even what was said to that





1 witness, Mr X, we will say, that was enough to

2 discipline a police officer, regardless of whether we

3 have a standard beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance

4 of credible evidence, and for the life of me I could not

5 understand why Commander Mulvihill would dismiss the

6 report of this neutral witness, Mr X, I will call him,

7 whom I met and I was there with this witness when he

8 gave his statement to Mulvihill. I am not infallible

9 but I think after many years of practice of law you can

10 judge credibility very well and he seemed very credible.

11 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 past.

13 (3.10 pm)

14 (Short break)

15 (3.25 pm)

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips?

17 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Lynch, so far as your meeting with

18 Rosemary Nelson in, I think, September or

19 early October 1998 is concerned, I think you have

20 already mentioned you met her at a dinner in New Jersey

21 at the time she came over to talk to the congressional

22 subcommittee. Is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You talk about this in paragraph 100 at RNI-812-096 at

25 the bottom of the page (displayed) and that she spoke to





1 those gathered at the dinner about threats. Did you

2 have any one-to-one conversation with her?

3 A. I did.

4 Q. Did that include a discussion of what the situation was

5 with the threats?

6 A. It did.

7 Q. Can you remember what she said?

8 A. Well, I hadn't been in Washington when she testified,

9 although it was in the papers, and -- I didn't hear her

10 verbatim testimony before Chairman Smith's committee.

11 She came up to Hoboken, which coincidentally is where

12 Jean Forest lived, and there was I guess a group of 20

13 or 30 people there at the restaurant and she spoke to

14 the group. I didn't have anything to say at that group

15 publicly, but afterwards I was talking to her and I --

16 this is my best recollection but I basically asked her

17 how things were going. She -- I don't recall her

18 specifically saying, "I have had new threats" or "Old

19 threats have been repeated", but I gathered that the

20 situation had not been resolved. That was just

21 generally my conclusion because that is the foundation

22 for my comment that I said to her something to the

23 effect of, "Rosemary, have you ever thought about giving

24 up -- leaving this type of work and just handling run of

25 the mill legal cases?" I think earlier I testified as





1 to her response was, essentially "If I don't do this

2 work, who will?" and "My clients are relying on me and I

3 can't abandon them".

4 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you about the Lawyers Alliance

5 delegation visit to Northern Ireland the following year?

6 This is in February 1999. It was a smaller group, I

7 think, wasn't it, than the previous year, 1998?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. What was the main purpose of the visit?

10 A. It might be just considered the annual visit. My own

11 purpose is we had some close friends here and we kept in

12 touch with that boy's family from Divis, and I just

13 enjoyed the interaction with the lawyers here and the

14 people, and I think maybe the Lord Chief Justice would

15 have been disappointed if he didn't have a visit from

16 Mr Lynch that year. We had Mr Divine came, he was an

17 Attorney General in the State of New Jersey. Mr Whalen

18 was a private practitioner. Chief Reilly, you have

19 heard of him. Mr Norman Higgins, I don't think he had

20 much connection with the law. I think you identified

21 him, he used to be in the military police with the air

22 force. I really didn't know him, but we had an open

23 door policy to people wanting to join us, and he showed

24 up and he came along.

25 My purpose was we wanted to meet with different





1 groups. We met in the Lower Ormeau, we went to the

2 Garvaghy Road and we then went out to Derry at the

3 Pat Finucane Centre. I think the idea then was to see

4 how was this peace process progressing, was there any

5 change in the legal climate, what were the solicitors

6 having to say, the barristers, about -- was there an

7 opening up of the Diplock court system, was there

8 a peace dividend? These are just general ideas.

9 But still we were going to meet with

10 Chief Constable Flanagan and still on my mind was the

11 question of Rosemary Nelson.

12 Q. We will come to the meeting with the Chief Constable in

13 a minute. Mr Reilly, I think it was, said to the

14 Inquiry that his recollection was that the visit was to

15 see how things were going, as it were, 10 months after

16 the Good Friday Agreement. Does that sound right?

17 A. I agree with that, yes.

18 Q. I think the Chief Constable himself recalls an interest

19 of the group being in how the Patten Commission, which

20 was obviously part of that, was getting on with its

21 work. Do you remember that being a topic of interest?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You held, didn't you, public meetings during your visit?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Publicised them in advance and people turned up to have





1 discussions with you?

2 A. Right. We did not publicise them but the local

3 community may have publicised them.

4 Q. Is it right that the vast majority of attendees at those

5 meetings were from the Nationalist side of the

6 community?

7 A. Well, you know, we didn't take attendance or ask for

8 declarations when they showed up. Whoever came and

9 wanted to speak to us, we would hear them. But the

10 truth of the matter is, yes. I told you, previously, in

11 1996, we held a conference at the Dukes Hotel where we

12 did have attendance by Loyalist representatives, and

13 I have given you some names, I gather some are blacked

14 out. I also -- I don't think his name is blacked out

15 but I reached out for Davy Irvine, whom I had a lot of

16 respect for, from the PUP, and when we would come over I

17 would try and see him.

18 In fact, as recently as 1996 in April we invited him

19 to Syracuse University. We had a forum there on the

20 peace process. Syracuse, you might know, is known as

21 the Orangemen. That is the Syracuse University

22 Orangemen. He couldn't make it. I spoke to him on the

23 phone. He sent a statement which was read into the

24 record at the conference at Syracuse University. But

25 the truth of the matter is I believe that is correct.





1 Those who came to these meetings were from the

2 Nationalist persuasion, but generally, you know, when we

3 would come, Mr Phillips, we would meet people in the

4 streets, restaurants, and on rare occasion in the pubs.

5 You know, we would talk to people, find out what is

6 going on. We never drew a line as to who we would be

7 happy to hear from.

8 Q. Now, we know that the meeting with the Chief Constable

9 took place on 27th February. Can I ask you in relation

10 to this meeting: was there any advance agreement or

11 notice given to him of what was to be discussed at the

12 meeting, as far as you can recall?

13 A. I know I had exchanged letters with one of his

14 assistants, I believe, and I followed up with,

15 I believe, a phone call when I got over here but I don't

16 think there was any setting out of a particular agenda.

17 Q. But was the position for this meeting the same as the

18 previous one which you mentioned earlier, namely that he

19 was happy to discuss whatever topic came up and to

20 follow the conversation where it went?

21 A. I think that is a fair statement.

22 Q. Thank you. You say, as far as you were concerned at any

23 rate -- and this is paragraph 104, RNI-812-098

24 (displayed) -- Rosemary Nelson's case was item 1 on your

25 agenda for the meeting.





1 A. Correct.

2 Q. In the meeting itself, as opposed to what was on your

3 agenda, is it right that her case was not the first

4 thing that came up at the meeting?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Indeed, there was a discussion on a number of other

7 issues before her case was raised.

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Can you remember who raised it?

10 A. I think Chief Reilly took the lead initially because he

11 had some common experience with

12 Chief Constable Flanagan. Obviously there was a great

13 number of disparity in the force that Chief Reilly was

14 in charge of in New Jersey and the force of the RUC, but

15 they had both attended the FBI Academy, they both were

16 professional policemen. So there was sort of -- and I

17 think they knew some people in common, I think maybe the

18 chief superintendent of the Gardai down in the Republic.

19 So initially, as often at these meetings, there would be

20 a lot of small talk, chit-chat. I don't recall the

21 situation with the biscuits and tea, as Mr Burke seems

22 to recall vividly, but it was an affable meeting.

23 There was a gentleman taking notes. I think

24 Mr Whalen of our group, Patrick Whalen was taking notes,

25 and then this conversation did turn -- and I am not sure





1 who raised it -- to Rosemary Nelson.

2 Q. Now, you deal with this in your statement at

3 RNI-812-099, paragraph 110. (displayed). At the bottom

4 of the page and reading over to RNI-812-100 (displayed),

5 and you say there that when Mr Reilly mentioned

6 Rosemary Nelson's name -- I take it for the first time

7 in the meeting -- there was a suggestion by the

8 Chief Constable that he didn't know much about her

9 circumstances. Are you sure that that was his reaction

10 at this meeting?

11 A. I think immediately before that the question -- the case

12 came up of Davy Adams, who in 1998 in February had been

13 awarded £30,000 by I think it was Justice Kerr, for

14 a severe beating he had taken at the hands of the RUC.

15 I remember, I think it was Walt Pollard telling me in

16 1998 that he questioned the chief what was going to be

17 done about these officers who had been found liable for

18 this severe beating and abuse of the detainee, and the

19 response generally was: we have to wait for the process,

20 any potential criminal investigation to work its way

21 through. So as soon as the criminal process is

22 complete, we will address those concerns about those

23 officers.

24 So I remember I think I raised that with the chief

25 in 1999 saying: what has happened to the officers who





1 beat Davy Adams? His response was, well, he started to

2 talk about: there is a burden of proof here, beyond

3 a reasonable doubt, and we don't have enough evidence.

4 At that point the meeting turned a little more tense,

5 shall I say.

6 Then we moved on to Rosemary Nelson and he gave the

7 impression that he was not particularly familiar with

8 the case. I don't think he said: I don't know who she

9 is or I know nothing about it. It just was something to

10 the effect that he was not particularly familiar with

11 the details or the circumstances. That is my best

12 recollection.

13 Q. Do you think then that what he was saying to you is he

14 himself was not particularly familiar with the detail

15 but that the matter was under investigation?

16 A. Well, that could be true. I think what he was saying --

17 I would understand that, that he himself would not know

18 personally the details, but again -- let me step back

19 a bit. I can't imagine that he would not have known.

20 If he didn't know the details as of February 1999, he

21 should have known. This has been going on

22 since March 1997. This is not some minor incident of

23 a police officer referring to somebody as a Fenian,

24 et cetera. This was a case of threats. So I mean,

25 I take back what I said. I think if he were on top of





1 this situation, if he was a strong leader, he would have

2 known all about this case. He knew all these letters

3 had been coming from Mr Lynch raising the issue. He

4 knew I was part of the delegation. I would have thought

5 he would have been prepared to document what had been

6 done since March of 1997 to address serious allegations

7 of misconduct by his officers. And his response was

8 very vague and unsatisfactory.

9 That is where I think I interjected something to the

10 effect, "Chief, you must be kidding", that is about the

11 strongest language I use and I remember that, or, "Are

12 you serious?" or something like that. At which point I

13 do not recall the rest of the meeting but -- and I do

14 remember saying to him, "What are you going to do about

15 this, chief?"

16 Q. And his response was that this was under active

17 investigation. Is that right?

18 A. Yes, and that is really what I came to this meeting

19 about, not to insult him, not to embarrass him but

20 I really wanted to know what he was going to do about

21 that. I think I said that, faced him and looked him in

22 the eye and said, "Chief what are you going to do about

23 this?" I recall him getting a little flushed and he

24 became defensive again, talked about truth beyond

25 a reasonable doubt. It was very disquieting that he was





1 still reaching for these burdens of proof. Certainly

2 proof beyond a reasonable doubt is relevant, but you

3 first have to start an investigation and find out what

4 proof you have.

5 Q. Wasn't he telling you that the matter was under active

6 investigation and that the relevant and applicable

7 standard of proof under the RUC disciplinary proof was

8 "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

9 A. The latter part of your question I agree with. Now, the

10 prior part of it, the first part, he may have said that

11 but there was no independent support for a reasonable

12 conclusion that there was an investigation. We had

13 letters from other people saying they had shut down the

14 investigation because Rosemary refused to cooperate.

15 I found that inconsistent that now here we are

16 in February 1999 saying: it is still under

17 investigation.

18 Q. But you knew, didn't you, by this stage, that the

19 Chief Constable had appointed Commander Mulvihill to

20 investigate these matters?

21 A. I think Commander Mulvihill, whoever technically

22 appointed him, his involvement was stimulated by the

23 ICPC and maybe some of these complaints and letters we

24 had been writing, but whether the Chief Constable signed

25 the document that brought Mulvihill in,





1 Commander Mulvihill, I don't know.

2 Q. But as far as you knew, that process involving

3 Commander Mulvihill was still ongoing at the time of

4 this meeting?

5 A. February 1999?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. I didn't know what had happened to that process. That

8 was one of my concerns. Here we were in September and

9 the process, as you know, ended, sadly, four days after

10 Rosemary's killing. March 19th I think they issued

11 their report, which has been described as anodyne, which

12 I agree with. But the -- no, I didn't know what was

13 going on with Commander Mulvihill's investigation. I

14 didn't get a copy of it. I knew what I thought they had

15 was pretty strong evidence, but obviously the Commander

16 did not.

17 Q. Could I just ask you to look, please, at an earlier

18 account you gave of the meeting. It is at RNI-114-159

19 (displayed)

20 This is an exchange of emails between you and

21 counsel to the Cory investigation, and although it

22 suffers from a very large number of black redaction

23 marks -- do you see?

24 A. Just bear with me a minute.

25 Q. Sorry, it is on the screen, RNI-114-159.





1 A. I have it, yes.

2 Q. Do you see in your part of the message, which is the

3 bottom half, you are setting out, the first lines

4 anyway, an account of this very meeting, the meeting we

5 have just been discussing. The first thing I wanted to

6 ask you is you remembered at this stage anyway that

7 someone was taking notes. That would be a police

8 officer in the room, was it?

9 A. And also Patrick Whalen.

10 Q. Thank you, on your side, yes. Thank you.

11 Then do you see the description of what happened

12 begins:

13 "The meeting lasted ..."

14 Do you see that paragraph?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. You say:

17 "... a statement was made that we don't want another

18 case like that of Patrick Finucane."

19 Can you remember who made that statement in the

20 meeting?

21 A. I think I may have made it.

22 Q. Right. So far as the Chief Constable's response was,

23 you have him here as assuring you that the matter was

24 under active investigation. Do you see that?

25 A. I do.





1 Q. Now, there is no suggestion in your email, is there,

2 that he denied knowledge of what was going on during the

3 meeting? He was simply telling you, wasn't he, that it

4 was still being investigated?

5 A. Yes. Well, I can see that this was an email I typed

6 myself because I see that upper case there. My

7 secretaries wouldn't make that mistake. I don't think

8 it was at all comprehensive, but you are right, there is

9 no reference in there to the point of him not

10 acknowledging the details of the matter.

11 Q. Now, can I ask you about the mood of the meeting? There

12 is a suggestion in your statement that there were

13 moments at least when it became rather heated. Is that

14 your recollection?

15 A. Excuse me, Mr Phillips, that is where?

16 Q. Well, if you look at the top of RNI-812-100, for

17 example, you refer to the Chief Constable as being very

18 defensive?

19 A. I don't see -- is the word "heated" there?

20 Q. No, not the word "heated". What was his reaction then?

21 Describe it in your own words.

22 A. Well, it was defensive.

23 Q. Yes. But as far as you were concerned then, as far as

24 you can remember, the meeting remained cordial, did it?

25 A. Oh, yes, there was no hurling of insults or anything of





1 this nature. I think that when we brought up this case

2 of Davy Adams and then we moved to Rosemary Nelson, just

3 body language. He became more defensive and, I think

4 I said somewhere, his neck flushed a bit. But there was

5 no loud shouting or pounding of the table or anything

6 like that, but just as lawyers I think we make judgments

7 about how people are responding to our statements or

8 questions, and he seemed to become defensive.

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

10 a chronology which you referred to in your statement?

11 It is at RNI-114-152 (displayed). Again, it is on the

12 screen.

13 A. I have it, thank you.

14 Q. If you turn back to the letter, which covers it, it is

15 dated 19th April 1999 and that is at RNI-114-150

16 (displayed). It begins:

17 "Dear Sir or Madam."

18 If you look over the page to RNI-114-151, there is

19 a long list of copyees, including the Chief Constable

20 indeed and Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and John Ware and

21 various other people. Can I just ask you about the

22 letter and attached chronology? What was the purpose of

23 sending the letter and the chronology that went with it?

24 A. May I have the date again, please?

25 Q. Yes, I am sorry, the letter is dated April 18th, 1999





1 just a month after Rosemary Nelson's murder.

2 A. Well, Rosemary had been murdered. Many people were

3 greatly distressed, including myself, and I just went

4 back through my correspondence and my records to

5 document efforts which had been made to bring the

6 situation to the attention of the authorities while

7 there was still time to do something. And we -- you

8 know, after the fact nothing had been done for Rosemary,

9 but I think we were still concerned about this ongoing

10 misconduct and obviously there were other solicitors at

11 potential risk here.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr Lynch. Those are all the questions I have

13 here. But I do say, as you have probably now read if

14 you have been following the evidence, to all of the

15 witnesses to the Inquiry --

16 A. I do.

17 Q. -- that if there is a matter that you wish to raise with

18 the Panel which you haven't so far discussed with me,

19 this is your chance.

20 A. Yes, I do. Just bear with me a minute.

21 I endorse the statements made at the conclusion of

22 her testimony by Jane Winter. I thank you, Mr Phillips,

23 for your very thorough and fair questioning of me. As I

24 am sure you can appreciate, no lawyer likes to be

25 a witness; it is much easier to be on the other side of





1 the bar -- not the bar, the courtroom, and asking the

2 questions. But you have been very fair, thorough. Your

3 aide in London, [name deleted], has been most courteous, [name

4 deleted] has been most helpful, as has your associate

5 counsel.

6 I wish the Inquiry God speed. Ireland,

7 Northern Ireland, today in 2008 is a far different place

8 than it was when I first came in 1991 and part of the

9 progress forward will be aided by what this Inquiry is

10 doing, and I support and urge you to seek the truth

11 wherever it may lead.

12 I say to the lawyers of Northern Ireland, you have

13 made us feel welcome since 1991. I think I speak for

14 the approximately 200/250 lawyers, that we stand in

15 admiration of the Irish lawyers. You have become

16 advocates and you have shown us what it means to be an

17 advocate, always acting in the interests of your

18 clients. We deeply appreciate your hospitality over the

19 years and, as I say, we stand in admiration of you.

20 With respect to Rosemary's family, to Paul Nelson,

21 to Mrs Magee, to the children, [name deleted], [name deleted] and

22 [name deleted], to her brother Eunan, sister Bernadette and

23 the other brothers and sisters, hold your heads up high,

24 you had a wonderful person in Rosemary Nelson. Those of

25 us who came from the States felt very privileged to be





1 in her company. She was a special person. I don't

2 think we will see her like again very soon. I have

3 a belief that there is a spiritual life and I think that

4 Rosemary's spirit continues and she is living in that

5 spiritual life.

6 Finally, I want to mention an event which took place

7 in Chicago in July 2001. The American Bar Association

8 presented its highest award to Rosemary Nelson, which is

9 the Rule of Law Award. That recognises a lawyer who has

10 distinguished herself or himself in protecting the

11 disfavoured, standing up where others declined to stand

12 or maybe were afraid to stand up. That award was given

13 to Rosemary Nelson. I was present and on behalf of

14 Paul Nelson accepted the award. There were lawyers

15 there and judges from Africa, from Europe and

16 South America and they stood in tribute. It was at the

17 Chicago Board of Trade. I still remember it as if it

18 happened months ago, days ago, and in conclusion I just

19 want to read to you, with your permission, your

20 indulgence, my final remarks because I think they sum up

21 how I feel about this Inquiry and about Rosemary Nelson.

22 This is what I said at the Bar Association Award:

23 "To me and many Americans Rosemary was a friend and

24 a humorous colleague who cannot be replaced. Even today

25 I cannot quite come to grips with the reality of her





1 absence. So I say thank you to each and every one of

2 you who have honoured Rosemary by this prestigious award

3 and by your presence here tonight.

4 "Rosemary studied and followed the teachings of

5 Dr Martin Luther King Junior. In his last public

6 address before he was shot down in Memphis, Dr King

7 spoke of how he wished to be remembered, as if he had

8 a premonition of things to come the next morning.

9 Perhaps you will find Dr King's remarks an appropriate

10 remembrance of Rosemary Nelson.

11 "'I would like someone to mention the day of his

12 memorial that Martin Luther King Junior tried to give

13 his life serving others. I would like for someone to

14 say that day that Martin Luther King Junior tried to

15 love somebody. I want you to say that day that I tried

16 to feed the hungry. And I want you to be able to say

17 that day that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who

18 were naked, to visit those who were in prison, to love

19 and serve humanity.

20 "'Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major,

21 say that I was a drum major for justice, say that I was

22 a drum major for peace, I was a drum major for

23 righteousness, and all the other shallow things will not

24 matter. I won't have any money to leave behind, I won't

25 have fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind,





1 but I just want to leave a committed life behind and

2 that is all I wanted to say.'

3 "And that is all I have to say tonight in honour of

4 Rosemary Nelson."

5 Thank you.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Lynch, and we

7 are very grateful for you coming once again to Belfast

8 to give evidence before us.

9 A. Thank you.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now.

11 Mr Donaldson, I hope but, as I said earlier, I do

12 not promise, that we will be able to give our decision

13 this evening. I hope I am right in believing that the

14 bar library is in walking distance of here. If we are

15 not giving our decision this evening, we will notify you

16 as soon as possible. If we are, we will give you plenty

17 of time and I would anticipate it wouldn't be before,

18 looking at the time now, about 6 o'clock. If we were

19 giving our decision this evening.

20 MR DONALDSON: That would be very helpful, sir, to inform

21 our future conduct, as it were. Do I anticipate from

22 what you have said, sir, that perhaps we might receive

23 a message, maybe some time later this evening, as to

24 your decision, without giving reasons of course at this

25 stage?





1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. If we have reached our decision,

2 without giving reasons, we will of course notify you,

3 but our proposal at the moment is to give the reasons

4 for our decision at the same time as we announce the

5 decision. If that is not possible, we will notify you

6 accordingly.

7 MR DONALDSON: May I make a further inquiry, sir? In

8 relation to the timing tomorrow, could you give some

9 indication as to what time in the morning you would

10 intend to give your ruling?

11 THE CHAIRMAN: If we were giving our ruling in the morning,

12 we would give our ruling, I would expect, at half past

13 nine. But I hope to give it this evening. I said that

14 already.

15 MR DONALDSON: Yes, I am sure. I'm a bit slow.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: We hope to give it this evening. If we do

17 not give it this evening, we will give it in the morning

18 at half past nine.

19 MR DONALDSON: Thank you.

20 (3.56 pm)

21 (The Panel retired to consider the application)

22 (6.30 pm)

23 R U L I N G

24 THE CHAIRMAN: In his skeleton argument of today

25 Mr Donaldson, on behalf of the PSNI, applies for





1 permission to question four witnesses who are due to

2 give evidence to the Inquiry this week. Before dealing

3 with the substance of the application, it is necessary

4 to re-emphasise to the Full Participants and to the

5 public that this is an inquisitorial and not an

6 adversarial process. I made that position absolutely

7 plain in my initial statement, delivered as long ago

8 as April 2005. It is a position which has been

9 maintained consistently ever since. The role of the

10 Full Participants in this Inquiry is first and foremost

11 to assist the Inquiry in its search for the truth.

12 One of the aspects of the inquisitorial approach is

13 that the questioning of witnesses is undertaken by

14 Inquiry Counsel on our behalf. At the case management

15 hearing in October last year I explained our thinking as

16 to the process of questioning which will be followed

17 during the Full Hearings. That process was not

18 challenged by any of the Full Participants at the time,

19 and in due course, at the end of January this year, the

20 relevant protocol for questioning was set out in

21 a letter from the Inquiry Solicitor to the Full

22 Participants.

23 The protocol provides, in short, that those

24 representing Full Participants and certain witnesses may

25 submit questions or lines of questioning for witnesses





1 to our counsel no later than 48 hours -- that is two

2 working days -- before the witness is called. Counsel

3 to the Inquiry will then put such questions or pursue

4 such lines of questioning as appropriate. If a question

5 or line of questioning is not so pursued, it is open to

6 the representatives to raise the matter with our

7 counsel. If counsel do not believe that it would be

8 necessary or appropriate to put such questions to the

9 witness, it is open to the representative to apply to us

10 to do so.

11 As we made clear in January, we expect such cases to

12 be the exception rather than the rule. Our solicitor's

13 letter continued in these terms:

14 "The Panel do not intend to permit the Full Hearings

15 to be lengthened by adversarial, unnecessary or

16 repetitive questioning."

17 My colleagues and I remain committed to the system

18 which we have established and which we have operated

19 during the hearings. We believe that this approach

20 ensures that relevant questions are put on our behalf to

21 witnesses in an impartial manner.

22 In his oral submissions to us this afternoon,

23 Mr Donaldson emphasised the impartiality of Counsel to

24 the Inquiry. This impartiality is essential to the

25 inquisitorial nature of our work. I reiterate: this is





1 not a trial. Witnesses do not attend the hearings to be

2 cross-examined but rather to help us in our search for

3 the truth. Witnesses are to be questioned thoroughly

4 but in a courteous and non-confrontational way. This is

5 part of our effort to ensure that all witnesses are

6 treated equally and fairly by the Inquiry.

7 We do not accept that the neutrality of Counsel to

8 the Inquiry will in any way compromise or undermine our

9 search for the truth and the fulfilment of our Terms of

10 Reference.

11 This is the procedure which we have publicly

12 announced and it is the basis on which all witnesses

13 have agreed to attend to give evidence at these

14 hearings. They do not expect to be cross-examined by

15 counsel for the Full Participants. We believe that this

16 is an important safeguard for our witnesses and an

17 encouragement to them to give their evidence to us

18 freely and frankly.

19 Turning now to Mr Donaldson's application in respect

20 of the four former clients of Rosemary Nelson who are

21 due to give evidence this week, their evidence should be

22 seen in the context of the larger body of complaints by

23 and about Rosemary Nelson with which this Inquiry is

24 concerned. Indeed, in the course of his oral submission

25 today, we understand Mr Donaldson to be saying that his





1 application would apply in relation to all clients

2 called to give evidence at the hearings.

3 The Inquiry's List of Issues requires us to

4 investigate these matters and other similar matters. We

5 have obtained witness statements from these and other

6 clients and from some of the police officers who were

7 said to have been involved in the relevant incidents and

8 whose conduct was considered during the complaints

9 investigations which took place in the period from 1997

10 to 1999.

11 We have required some of these witnesses to come to

12 give evidence to us during these Full Hearings. We

13 expect them, clients and police officers, to be treated

14 in the same way as all other witnesses who have appeared

15 and will appear to give evidence to us. We expect them

16 to be questioned robustly but in a non-adversarial way,

17 so as to ensure that their evidence is of the greatest

18 possible assistance to us.

19 We are not concerned to try or, more correctly,

20 retry each and every complaint case in order to make

21 findings in our report about particular cases, about

22 particular clients and particular police officers or

23 about their individual credibility. We are not in the

24 business of conducting a series of mini trials. We are

25 concerned rather with the broader picture, with what





1 these cases tell us about prevailing attitudes, both to

2 Rosemary Nelson and to the RUC at this time, and about

3 the patterns of behaviour, not only of police officers

4 but also of the clients of Rosemary Nelson.

5 Thus, the evidence of both clients and police

6 officers is important to us not for its own sake but for

7 its part in the much broader range of evidence and

8 material which we have gathered in the course of our

9 work. We take the view that our consideration of this

10 evidence can be undertaken fairly and impartially in the

11 course of the inquisitorial process which I have

12 outlined.

13 We do not accept that the relatively small number of

14 questions which the PSNI have submitted in relation to

15 these witnesses cannot properly be asked by our counsel

16 to the Inquiry, if appropriate, in accordance with our

17 protocol.

18 At this stage I should deal with the submission made

19 by Mr Donaldson in relation to any criminal records of

20 the client witnesses. Mr Donaldson suggests that it is

21 necessary for the Inquiry to consider any such records

22 in forming a view concerning the credibility of the

23 witnesses. We do not agree. In the course of his

24 opening submissions Counsel to the Inquiry suggested

25 that the following matters should be considered in





1 assessing the evidence relating to complaints, and

2 I quote from the transcript of Day 6, page 60, line 20

3 to page 62 line 10. The quotation reads as follows:

4 "So the first matter to be considered in relation to

5 each of these nine cases is whether, on the material you

6 have and the evidence you read and later hear, threats

7 or adverse behaviour or comment in fact occurred, and

8 you have to weigh up the material and the accounts given

9 in what I hope I can be forgiven for describing as the

10 usual way. You will want to take into account the

11 investigations which have gone before, but of course you

12 are not, in the case of any of the reports we have seen

13 from investigating officers in G Department or from

14 Commander Mulvihill, bound by or constrained by their

15 conclusions.

16 "... you will want to consider familiar questions,

17 such as consistency: is this the account which the

18 witness has given at all stages of the matter? You may

19 think of importance in relation to the officers is this

20 question of consistency, because they have consistently

21 denied the allegations from the outset. But you will

22 also want to bear in mind, of course, time, the time

23 which has elapsed now since the events in question, but

24 also time which elapsed in some of the cases between the

25 events said to have given rise to the complaints and the





1 first initiation of a complaint, and also the first

2 occasion on which an account or statement about those

3 events was made. And of course, you will also want to

4 look carefully at the other matters referred to in their

5 reports by the investigating officers, the cogency of

6 accounts, their level of detail, their consistency, of

7 course, the way in which the accounts emerged, and all

8 the matters which we have looked at in the course of

9 considering these nine complaints.

10 "So far as the hearings are concerned, in the case

11 of witnesses, including the clients, where, despite the

12 efforts of the Inquiry, they do not attend, you will no

13 doubt factor that also into your consideration of the

14 material as a whole. You will want to think carefully,

15 for example, about the weight to be attached to the

16 evidence of anyone who makes serious allegations but

17 then elects not to come and give evidence about them

18 and, in that sense, submit himself to questioning during

19 the Inquiry's hearings."

20 We are assisted by this guidance. We will bring to

21 the assessment of this and all other evidence our own

22 experience and judgment. We do not accept in general

23 that criminal convictions are of assistance one way or

24 the other in the assessment of a witness's credibility

25 or his or her motivation.





1 In addition, however, the raising of criminal

2 convictions would have an adverse impact on the

3 Inquiry's general approach as outlined above. To take

4 just one example, it would then seem to us to be

5 inevitable that the criminal convictions of other

6 witnesses and the disciplinary history of police

7 officers, soldiers and civil servants would then be fair

8 game.

9 There are other important points which must be noted

10 at this stage. First, there is the question of

11 representation. A very substantial proportion of

12 serving or retired police officers or witnesses in the

13 Inquiry have elected not to be represented by the PSNI

14 legal department. In addition to this, there are

15 several firms of solicitors representing the four client

16 witnesses. As we understand it, none of these firms has

17 been notified of this application. They are therefore

18 not in a position to address us in relation to it.

19 Notwithstanding this, it appears to us that if PSNI

20 were allowed to question these clients outside the

21 Inquiry's established protocol, we would have to afford

22 the same right to those who represent the other

23 officers. In addition, we would have to ensure that

24 each of the clients were legally represented during the

25 questioning and then, in turn, afford to their





1 representatives the right to question the relevant

2 officers.

3 As for the other Full Participants, it may be that

4 one or more of them would now wish to suggest to us that

5 there are questions which they should be allowed to put

6 directly to the witnesses, whether clients or police

7 officers.

8 In short, the present application, if acceded to,

9 would bring to an end the inquisitorial system which has

10 been operated successfully during the first four weeks

11 of evidence. It would turn the Inquiry hearing into an

12 adversarial process which would be disproportionate and

13 undermine our search for the truth.

14 Further, there would be inevitable and considerable

15 increases in both the length and the cost of an already

16 expensive and lengthy process. That is not something

17 that the Panel is prepared to contemplate at this stage

18 of its work. The application is dismissed.

19 The Panel notes that in his skeleton argument

20 Mr Donaldson stated that in the event that his

21 application was refused, the PSNI would seek judicial

22 review of the Panel's decision. That is, of course,

23 a matter for him and his clients. However, I would

24 observe that such proceedings should not be allowed to

25 interrupt our work. The four witnesses in question will





1 be called to give evidence this week as announced. In

2 accordance with our protocol, Mr Donaldson will have an

3 opportunity to raise with our counsel matters that he

4 believes should have been put to the witnesses, and if

5 counsel decides not to raise those matters, to make an

6 application to us to do so himself.

7 If the PSNI decides to bring judicial review

8 proceedings, we do not accept that there should be any

9 interruption of our hearings. Even if those proceedings

10 were to be resolved in favour of the PSNI, the witnesses

11 could, of course, be recalled to the Full Hearings for

12 further questioning later in the year.

13 We will adjourn now until 10.15 tomorrow morning.

14 (6.47 pm)

15 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)
















MR EDMUND EUGENE LYNCH (sworn) ................... 1
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 1
Submissions by MR DONALDSON ...................... 89
MR EDMUND LYNCH (continued) ...................... 95
Questions by MR PHILLIPS (continued) ......... 96
R U L I N G ...................................... 149