Loughinisland widow challenges report

Published Friday, 03 February 2012
Comments
Toggle font size
Print

The widow of one of the men murdered in the Loughinisland massacre has begun a High Court challenge to a report which said there was insufficient evidence of security force collusion.

Loughinisland widow challenges report
The widow of a man shot in Loughinisland massacre is appealing a report. (© UTV)

Six Catholics were killed and five others were seriously wounded when UVF gunmen opened fire at the Heights Bar in Co Down in 1994.

Barney Green was 87 when the shooting took place, making him one of the oldest victims of the Troubles.

His wife Brigid is seeking to have the Police Ombudsman's report quashed.

No one has been convicted of the murders, although 16 people have been arrested in connection with the attack.

Victims' relatives suspect the RUC investigation was undermined in order to protect informants.

But in June last year Mr Hutchinson found there was insufficient evidence of collusion between police and the loyalist gang.

The ombudsman did identify failings in the investigation, criticising it for a lack of diligence, focus and leadership.

His report is now to be the subject of a legal challenge which will also focus on a Criminal Justice Inspectorate review of Troubles-related investigations.

That hearing was put on hold on Friday while lawyers for Mrs Green contest a decision to refuse legal aid funding for their case.

A judge is expected to decide on the issue of funding following further submissions later this month.

However, Mrs Green's case against the Ombudsman is not thought to depend on securing legal aid.

Outside the court her solicitor, Paul Pierce, of Kevin R Winters and Co, said: "Our challenge to the Police

Ombudsman's report has been brought because of a number of significant failings in the investigation.

"These include those pointed out by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate."

© UTV News
Comments Comments
11 Comments
pj in ulster wrote (107 days ago):
we do not need another enquiry into the past as big martin said to garda widow 'time to move on' or does this only apply to victims of republician terrorists
zejackal in belfast wrote (107 days ago):
I look at some of these comments and can't believe the people writing them can call themselves decent. Does this woman not deserve to know the truth behind those who mudered her husband and those who protected them? Is she not worth it? What about the billions being spent from tax payers money to invade iraq and afghanistan. Do you complain about that? This woman like many others deserves to have closure on this. If the government played a part in her husbands death then the govt should fork out for whatever is necessary for her to be told the truth. David Lorna and Maggie, you sicken me
Ulysses32 in Belfast wrote (108 days ago):
Lorna on her high horse again, typical. But of course one could never accuse you of being a hypocrite, now can one? We even have comments confirming your own embitterment or, more precisely, your one-sided view in favour of your lily-white RUC. They could never do any wrong... cough... cough... Glenane Gang... cough ...cough http://www.u.tv/News/Kingsmills-families-want-public-inquiry/495559ad-5f9e-40d6-90ca-7d83ffdfd2f6
seamas in BELFAST wrote (108 days ago):
“Omagh bomb group to meet NI committee”. Here we have a victims group asking for a public inquiry. Not a single comment on this sight complaining about this. No Maggies or Lornas, no Billys or Normans. I wonder why? Is it because of who the perpetrators were? Is it only a waste of taxpayer’s money if we're asked to investigate the police?
maggie in north west wrote (108 days ago):
The widow is clearly not happy because of the defination of the word "collusion" it means being involved with. And the former Ombudsman used it when there was a person escaping conviction of a crime they being police informers. How can they say the same about this case. Because the persons who carried out the murders were not convicted does not mean they were protected and that is what this investigation was to uncover and be proved this was not the case. NOW because their were no convictions I would believe the loyalists were able to use the weapon instrumated by the politicans themselves for they tied the RUC to strict guidelines when questioning the terrorists and being given the benifit of doubt in court meant the RUC must have a sound case against these people. This does not mean there were collusion because it was against the Catholic people
POST A COMMENT:
Name:  
Email address*:    
Location:  
Validation:
House Rules:  
Your Comment:  
[All comments are moderated and will not appear immediately. Your name, location and comment will be displayed on this page if your post passes moderation.]
MOST POPULAR GALLERIES