Debate contribution: Kingsmills Massacre: Police Ombudsman’s Report

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 4 November 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

4 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Kingsmills Massacre: Police Ombudsman’s Report

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4626029

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

I am honoured to propose the motion on behalf of Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, and the family of John McConville. Innocent victims are a priority for the DUP. We consider it a privilege and a solemn obligation and duty to support these families in their quest for truth and justice. The Kingsmills massacre is one of the most horrific and blatantly sectarian atrocities in our history. The brutal murder of 10 innocent Protestant workmen by the IRA on 5 January 1976 remains a painful reminder of the hatred that fuelled terrorism and robbed so many of their futures. The fact that some in high office suggest that there was no alternative to such sectarian murder is utterly repugnant. As if what happened to those men is not bad enough, it is appalling that, some 48 years after that most ruthless, callous and sectarian of murders, which caused embarrassment even to the IRA, their families still have to fight, at every turn, the very systems and statutory bodies that were set up to help them and support them to get to the truth.

It is profoundly unjust that the families affected have waited so long for answers. On 4 October, Mr Black even had to issue a second pre-application protocol letter on the Office of the Police Ombudsman to try to secure the section 62 report on the Kingsmills massacre. Each time, he has had to use money that he has saved to pay for his funeral. As far as I am aware, to date, there has been no response.

No one has ever been held to account for the murders, nor has the inquest answered all the questions that the families had hoped. For eight years, they could see that there was information that they would not be given, and they watched that play out in court, but the coroner speculated that missed steps could have provided evidence from both the RUC and the guards, who were reported to have taken samples of the vehicle connected to the attack. That is one of the many reasons why the Police Ombudsman's report is so important. Mr Black is now 81 years old and in poor health. He has endured an eight-year inquest that raised more questions than it answered. As a result, he has pinned his hopes for getting to the truth on the Police Ombudsman's report but fears that he may not live to see it. The matter should have been resolved. Bear in mind that the initial complaint was in 2013. He fails to understand why the Office of the Police Ombudsman would treat him in that way. He believes that it is cruel. It is. The coroner indicated that the families should get the report as soon as the inquest was over. That was six months ago. They have been provided with nothing but mixed messages. They were told by one of the ombudsman's investigators that the report was completed in 2020. Later, they were advised that it was not and was still being worked on. That office, on which many victims rely for the truth, cannot even seem to get its own story straight. Why the hold-up? Why is it not handing over the report? The families are entitled to the information and the report expeditiously. They have been through enough. Six months after the conclusion of the inquest, the ombudsman's office continues to withhold the report despite numerous repeated requests from the families' solicitors and elected representatives, denying the families full disclosure as they seek the truth. That is no way to treat innocent victims. It is shameful. They feel that the Office of the Police Ombudsman is purposely running down the clock. Just because it can take until 30 April 2025 to produce its report does not mean that it should. To do so is completely unacceptable. It will leave the families no avenue to pursue the questions that they may have arising from any published report. After that April 2025 deadline, the ombudsman's office will cite that it no longer has any statutory powers or responsibilities on events of that era as a result of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and other bodies to whom that case may be passed will rightly state that it is not their report and, therefore, they are unable to comment on it or answer to it. Thus, the families will be stonewalled again. You could write the script already. It is grotesque. Mr Black and John McConville's sisters Karen, Tania and Mandy have fought long and hard against everybody, including the state, for the truth in a way in which they ought never to have had to. Mr Black survived but has spent the rest of his life in a fight for justice for his murdered friends. He feels that he owes it to them to pursue the truth until his dying day. They are owed justice and explanations. John McConville and his family lost the promise of his future and all that it held. His family, too, have spent their lives having to campaign. Every gathering and happy event is tinged with the loss, the empty chair and the absolute barbarity of what happened on that night. The Secretary of State also has a role here. Recent government decisions on legacy issues have perpetuated a hierarchy, suggesting that some murders are more deserving of investigation than others. Kingsmills offers the Government the chance to address that imbalance and show genuine support for victims who seek truth and transparency. It is important to note that, over the course of the inquest, there were several times when it was stopped to allow private discussion between the coroner and lawyers for the state; secret discussions in which the families' lawyers were not permitted to partake or even to be present at. Likewise, the Government in the Republic have questions to answer. They may have passed laws to allow for disclosure to Northern Ireland, but to what effect when the Attorney General will decide what is "relevant" to be released? What is "relevant"? That is just weak and obfuscatory. In truth, the guards sent "relevant" newspaper clippings. Newspaper clippings. That is the extent of the efficacy of legacy disclosure laws in the Republic; the mere semblance of helping. Bear in mind that the gunmen were in no hurry to get away. You would think that the possibility of the security forces arriving at any moment would cause haste. There were three army patrols within a mile and a half of the murder scene at the time of the incident. You would think that even the physical impact of adrenaline in the body in such a situation would cause them to run, but no. It was execution military-style. First, the men were shot in the legs to prevent them from running. They were then murdered one by one as the gunmen walked through the groaning, bullet-ridden bodies strewn on the ground, calmly and casually walking away from the scene. No haste, no hurry. Why? What did they know? Did they know that nobody was coming? Was there collusion with the IRA to protect informants? The horror was vividly clear from listening to the coroner's report. I wish Members to hear the following excerpts:

"the minibus ... was waved down by a man emerging from the nearside ditch and using a red lamp. The man with the lamp walked round to the driver’s window and was followed by three others who emerged from a nearside gateway just in front of the minibus."

The man told the bus driver:

"to turn out all the lights which he did. ... The same man, the only one Mr Black heard speak throughout, shouted 'Everybody out' and kept shouting 'Out, out, everybody out.' ... While waiting to get out of the minibus Mr Black saw seven or eight men walking towards it from the Bessbrook direction."

The workmen were told to line up against the side of the van and put their hands on it. Mr Hughes — more of whom later — gave evidence that:

"his hands and those of the men on either side of him interlapped. ... the man who stopped the minibus said ... 'Who is the Catholic?' ... nobody replied."

The sole Catholic on the bus by then testified that:

"the men on either side of him ... squeezed his hands. Mr Chapman and Mr Hughes glanced at each other, but nothing was said, and Mr Hughes did not move. Mr Black confirmed that Mr Hughes was not identified as a Catholic either by himself or any of the deceased."

Subsequently, Mr Hughes was told to get out of the line and "Run down the road." The report also states:

"The terrorists knew to remove this one man from the group based solely on his religion. ... Mr Black told the Inquest that the voice ... said 'Right' and there was a 'tremendous burst of shooting' ... He described the noise as deafening. Mr Black said that he was shot to his right side and fell ... down between the minibus and the ditch. Robert Chambers fell across his legs. Mr Black recalled terrible sounds of moaning and groaning from colleagues including Robert Chambers but said that he pretended to be dead. He recalled Mr Chambers, who was aged just 18, calling for his mother. The same man who had spoken throughout said 'Finish them off' ... Mr Black said that the noise of the second burst was completely different in that it was made up of single shots ... He specifically recalled that one of the gunmen walked round from the front of the minibus and directed a number of shots at him and others. He also recalled a terrorist saying 'there’s one round the back' and he thought the reference related to John McConville."

The families did not need an inquest to tell them that the IRA was responsible, but they need to know why it was allowed to happen and why the subsequent police investigation failed to follow basic lines of enquiry, which impacted significantly on its effectiveness. Shamefully, some of the information will likely never be released due to national security, although, for a layperson, it is hard to fathom what or who needs to be protected after almost 50 years. That is why it is all the more important that what can be released is released immediately. Forty-eight years of waiting is long enough; it is far too long. The Police Ombudsman must release the report without further delay. I call on the Department of Justice and the Secretary of State to intervene to ensure that that happens. Justice delayed must not be justice denied. The DUP believes that the door to justice must never close on innocent victims. We stand firmly with Alan Black, the McConville family and all innocent victims, who deserve truth and justice. Alan Black — the sole survivor of that horror — has shown remarkable courage and resilience. He has carried the immense trauma of that day and shown extraordinary determination in his pursuit of justice not only for himself but for the families of those who were cruelly taken. We want to ensure that Alan gets the answers that he so deserves in his lifetime. The Office of the Police Ombudsman must release that long overdue report without further delay. I call on all MLAs to support the motion.

1,921 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification