The family of Francis Rowntree, a 14 year old boy killed by a rubber bullet, have today had judgement entered against the MOD with costs to be paid to the Plaintiff following a hearing on the 29.11.21.
The action, which had been listed for a three day hearing commencing on the 29th November, today concluded with judgment against the Ministry of Defence with the MOD paying the families costs. The civil action had been brought against the Ministry of Defence following Inquest findings delivered by His Honour Judge Sherrard in November 2017 which found that there was no justification for the use of lethal force at the time Francis Rowntree was shot.
Francis Rowntree was a 14 year old boy. On April 20th 1972 he was in the vicinity of the Divis Area of Belfast. Rioting was taking place in the general area. A lorry had been hijacked and was abandoned on the road. Army personnel from the Royal Engineers had been deployed to move the lorry and were accompanied by units of the Royal Anglican Regiment who were in a number of armoured personnel carriers. Soldiers A and B, as identified in the subsequent fresh inquest heard in 2017, were in one of the carriers which was near the entrance to the Whitehall block of the Divis Flats. The soldiers were attempting to drive rioters back from their location. Soldier A instructed Soldier B to ensure that they did not get any closer. Soldier B, wearing a riot helmet and visor, opened the hatch to the right rear of the carrier and fired, on his account, two batons at the crowd of rioters. He said the first struck lamp post and was deflected away. The second, he said, was fired into the crowd and struck an unknown person.
Francis Rowntree was struck to the side of the head by the first baton round which had been fired. He sustained serious head injuries. He was taken from the scene to a nearby house and from there to the RVH where he died two days later. The weapon used and the baton round fired were not recovered by either the RUC or the army and were thus never sent for forensic examination. Soldiers A and B made statements to Sgt Harmon of the Royal Military Police special investigation branch on April 24th 1972. These statements were provided to the inquest which subsequently took place into Francis Rowntree’s death. Neither soldier appeared to give evidence at the inquest. Neither soldier was ever interviewed by any officer of the RUC regarding the killing. A report was submitted to the DPP for consideration of the question of prosecuting Soldier B. A decision not to prosecute him was indicated on June 19th 1973.
As a consequence of an application made by the family to the Attorney General, the AG directed that a fresh Inquest be held into the circumstances surrounding Francis’ death. At the conclusion of an inquest in November 2017 the Coroner came to the following conclusions:
(i)There was no justification for the use of lethal force at the time Francis Rowntree was shot. The force ultimately used far exceeded that which was absolutely necessary to achieve Soldier B’s stated objective.
(ii)Neither Soldier B, nor Mr Veitch, was aware of the potential lethality of the baton round. They had not been made aware of the minimum range for firing, nor the requirement to fire indirectly or at the lower limbs. The decision to use baton rounds as opposed to live rounds confirms that the soldiers did not consider this a situation justifying lethal force and there is no evidence before the court to persuade me either that it was Soldier B’s intention to kill or cause serious harm or that he knowingly used unreasonable force. Soldier B had been present in Northern Ireland and using the relevant weaponry for just 8 days at the material time and Francis was the first person to die as a result of a baton round.
(iii)The fact that lethal force was used in inappropriate and unwarranted circumstances is entirely due to deficiencies of the state which, in and about the introduction, management, regulation and control of the baton round, singularly failed to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to life. Specifically, the state provided Soldier B with a lethal weapon of questionable accuracy without any or adequate notice of its potential lethality, training in its use or direction as to its engagement including the use of lesser alternatives, the issue of warnings, target selection, choice of direct and indirect hits, area of aim in the event of a direct hit, vulnerability of particular targets including children and safe target distances. The absence of adequate training and instruction rendered it impossible for Soldier B to make a proper assessment concerning the use of minimum force.
On the basis of these positive inquest findings the family of Master Rowntree, issued proceedings suing the Ministry of Defence for the fatal shooting.
Eoin Murphy of Ó Muirigh Solicitors commented:
“This cases, which had been listed for hearing before the High Court on Monday 29th November has now concluded with judgement entered against the MOD. This conclusion would not have been achievable had it not been for the positive findings of the related Inquest proceedings in November 2017, which unearthed extensive material relating to the weapons and their use which had previously been unknown to the family. Today’s conclusion is testament to the family’s resilience and drive to achieve justice for their brother.”
ENDS