The families of two men killed in the notorious McGurk’s Bar Bomb on the 4th December 1971 seek High Court intervention to force disclosure from the PSNI, Secretary of State & Ministry of Defence. Our Eoin Murphy is instructed.
The step-son of Mr Philip Garry and the son of Mr Thomas McLaughlin, men killed on the 4th December 1971, have made an application to the High Court against the Ministry of Defence, the Police Service and Secretary of State concerning their ongoing failure to disclose documents as part of ongoing civil proceedings commenced by the families.
Background
McGurk’s Bar was situated at the junction of North Queen Street and Great George Street close to the New Lodge area of Belfast. On the evening of the 4th of December at approximately 8.45pm and without warning a bomb detonated inside the porch of the bar causing the walls of the building to collapse inwards. In all, fifteen people died in the explosion, including two children, whilst 16 attended hospital with injuries. The explosion caused the greatest loss of life of any single incident in Belfast during the conflict. Inquests into the deaths were held the following year, however open verdicts were returned in each case.
The Security Force investigation at the time focused on the narrative that the bomb was brought onto the premises by a member of the IRA who intended to transport it from the bar to another destination. The police, along with the Security Forces and Government Ministers, quickly publicised this version of events and attributed the incident as an IRA “own goal”. This narrative contradicted many eye witness accounts which stated that the bomb was placed outside the front door of the premises and the popular local belief that the explosion was a planned operation by pro-state terrorists. This local belief was later validated by a Historical Enquiries Team investigation which found that the bombing had infact been carried out by members of the UVF.
In 2011, a Police Ombudsman investigation showed that detectives had failed to properly probe Loyalist paramilitary involvement because they focused on a theory that Republicans were responsible. The Ombudsman’s report concluded that RUC officers had shown an “investigative bias” with the original misattribution of blame.
In addition to the above, key evidence was discovered by a family researcher concerning exactly what was known by the Security Forces at the time. In a British army HQNI log sheet for the 4th and 5th of December it is stated
“ATO [Ammunition Technical Officer] is convinced bomb was placed in entrance way on ground floor. The area is cratered and clearly was the seat of the explosion. Size of bomb likely to be 40/50Ibs”
A note was made in the action column stating “Not for P.R” which meant that crucial evidence from a British bomb disposal expert was not passed to Army Public Relations and given to the media. Despite this evidence the Security Forces promoted the theory that this bomb was an IRA “own goal” and withheld the evidence as to the ATO’s conclusions from: the general public; the families of the deceased and the Coroner at the original Inquests.
It was on foot of this accumulative evidence that the next of kin have brought civil proceedings against the MoD, Chief Constable of the PSNI and Secretary of State for NI. These proceedings are now at an advanced stage, but have been delayed by the Defendants continued failure to disclose documentation to the families’ solicitors.
Eoin Murphy of Ó Muirigh Solicitors commenting on the case stated:
“There have long been suspicions of security force involvement in this atrocity. This is reinforced by the catalogue of documentation which has been uncovered to date. The families know that there are undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of discoverable documents currently retained by the Defendants which are linked to the murders of their loved ones. There is an obligation on the Defendants to provide these documents at the close of pleadings but thus far have failed to do so. It is regrettable that the only way to achieve this important and crucial disclosure for families is through the continued intervention of the High Court.”