Outputs

Below are the outputs from our project including project reports, blogs, lectures and submissions to the Haass All-Party Talks.

Blogs

Conference Documents

  • SEPTEMBER 2015
    Implementing the Stormont House Agreement

    This conference brought together academics, representatives from human rights NGOs, and other practitioners to discuss, examine and provide an independent perspective on the Dealing with the Past elements of the Stormont House Agreement (SHA).

    It included presentations from members of an expert drafting group established as part of a collaborative QUB Business Alliance Project between the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and QUB School of Law, led by Professor Kieran McEvoy.

    This group has been working on the development of shadow legislation to parallel the official drafting process.

    Those involved in the drafting committee are: Professor Kieran McEvoy (QUB), Daniel Holder (CAJ), Professor Louise Mallinder (TJI), Brian Gormally (CAJ), Jeremy Hill (Visiting Fellow, TJI), Gemma McKeown (CAJ), Anna Bryson (QUB) and Daniel Greenberg (a barrister specialising in legislation).

     

  • 6 November 2014
    Dealing with the Past: Prosecutions and Amnesties
    By Louise Mallinder

    Slides from a presentation by Louise Mallinder at the Conference Transitional Justice in the Context of European Convention Obligations: Article 2 and the Package of Measures. 

  • | February 2014
    Truth
    By Louise Mallinder

    Conference slides

  • | February 2014
    Reparations
    By Luke Moffett

    Conference slides

  • Justice
    By Gordon Anthony

    Conference slides

  • | February 2014
    Acknowledgement, Apologies and Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland
    By Kieran McEvoy

    Conference slides

Project Reports

  • March 2015
    Investigations, Prosecutions, and the ‘Public Interest’
    By Gordon Anthony, Luke Moffett, Kieran McEvoy & Louise Mallinder

    This report examines the role that investigations and prosecutions play in the context of the Northern Ireland transition by considering: Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the need for the State to investigate the use of force by state actors such as the police or the army; and the fact that the state will in many cases be investigating acts of violence that were committed by state and non-state actors many years ago.

  • March 2015
    The Historical Use of Amnesties, Immunities, and Sentence Reductions in Northern Ireland
    By Kieran McEvoy, Luke Moffett, Louise Mallinder & Gordon Anthony

    While it is widely believed that the use of amnesties and similar measures would mark a new departure in NI and the UK, so that speculation about their introduction causes public controversy and threatens political instability, the report demonstrates that such measures have in fact been repeatedly used in a wide range of circumstances since the foundation of the NI state. The paper offers definitions of the key measures which have been employed, including amnesties, sentence reductions linked to peace building and use immunities. It explores their historical use and its consequences.

  • March 2015
    Investigations, Prosecutions, and Amnesties under Articles 2 & 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
    By Louise Mallinder, Luke Moffett, Kieran McEvoy & Gordon Anthony

    This report addresses the procedural legal obligations of states with regard to violations of the right to life (Article 2) and freedom from torture (Article 3) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with particular reference to the permissibility of amnesties under the convention.

Stormont House Agreement

  • September 2018
    Model Bill Response to NIO Legacy Consultation September 2018

    If there is consensus on anything in Northern Ireland today, it is that the current approach to ‘dealing with the past’ is not working. In particular, it is failing to deliver for victims and survivors, some of whom have been waiting forty years and more for truth, justice, reparations, and other needs to be addressed.

     

    The failure to address the past is placing huge pressure on the criminal justice system, is a constant source of tension on political relationships, and is undermining efforts to build reconciliation within and between communities. In short, the past needs to be addressed and the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) legacy mechanisms discussed in the attached report are realistically the last holistic effort that is likely to be made towards that end.

     

    To quote one veteran victims’ advocate who spoke at one of our recent consultation events, the Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill represents ‘the last chance saloon’ for many victims and their families. If this overarching effort is not delivered upon, victims and survivors will have been cruelly failed again. Such an outcome would be unconscionable and a moral blight on our politics.

     

    The Northern Ireland Office consultation that was launched in May 2018 provides detail on the proposed legislation designed to enact the series of mechanisms that were included in the Stormont House Agreement of December 2014. That Agreement was itself the culmination of lengthy negotiations by the five largest Northern Ireland political parties and the British and Irish governments. It retains many of the key features of preceding attempts to deal with the past. Although it is far from perfect, it represents what we believe to be the best possible opportunity to finally address the past.

     

    Shortly after the launch of the NIO public consultation five members of the original Model Bill team set about preparing this detailed response to these documents. This group offered a preliminary response to the NIO documents at a seminar held at QUB on 16 May 2018. At this event (attended by the NIO legacy team) some key concerns and potential ‘sticking points’ were identified. In the weeks that followed the team set about addressing those challenges and developed a more detailed response.

     

    We have tried to be as constructive as possible – highlighting strengths and points that we welcome. For each weakness that we identify (breaches of human rights standards, elements that run contrary to the Stormont House Agreement, or proposals that we believe to be unworkable) we endeavour to offer a remedy.

     

    We have included almost 50 substantive recommendations for changes that we believe are essential if this initiative to ‘deal with the past’ is to succeed. This may seem overwhelming but it is our firm belief that all of these obstacles can be overcome with legal imagination, political will and a moral commitment to deliver for victims and survivors. Standing back from the detail, it seems clear that if each of the mechanisms is:

    1. Placed on a suitably independent footing
    2.  Given the necessary resources, powers and clarity of mandate
    3. Staffed by the right people, who are appointed in line with clear and transparent criteria; and
    4. Protected from political interference

     

    the net result would be a significant advance on the prevailing fragmentary, under-resourced, and piecemeal approach to the past.

     

    The format of this report is as follows. We begin with a comprehensive Executive Summary that summarises the strengths and weaknesses in each of the mechanisms and sets out our key recommendations. We then address some crosscutting challenges that underscore the entire legacy process. These include issues that we believe ought to be included in the Stormont House Agreement Bill (a pension for the severely injured) and those that should not (a statute of limitations for former members of the security forces). Given its central importance to public confidence in the SHA mechanisms as a whole, we also offer some very clear recommendations on the issue of information redaction on the grounds of national security.

     

    In the main body of the report, we deal in turn with the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, the Oral History Archive, and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group.

     

    We include in an Appendix our proposed model for dealing with information redaction in light of national security concerns that was published in 2017, elements of which are summarised in the main text.

     

    This public consultation is a vitally important element of the legacy process. However, it is also important thereafter that all concerned remain vigilant as the legislation passes through the Houses of Parliament, as the mechanisms are established, and as they commence their work.

     

    In the aftermath of this consultation, we will continue to do what we can to help ensure that the legislation that transpires is human rights compliant and likely to deliver for victims and survivors. We remain open to providing briefings and advice to any interested parties and encourage you to get in touch if there are questions with which you think we may be able to assist. We hope that you will find this report helpful and encourage you to disseminate it amongst your networks.

     

    Professor Kieran McEvoy k.mcevoy@qub.ac.uk
    Professor Louise Mallinder l.mallinder@qub.ac.uk
    Dr Anna Bryson a.bryson@qub.ac.uk
    Mr Daniel Holder daniel@caj.org.uk
    Mr Brian Gormally brian@caj.org.uk

     

    30 August 2018

     

    [1] For the full range of documents see Northern Ireland Office, ‘Open Consultation, Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past’ (11 May 2018) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/addressing-the-legacy-of-northern-irelands-past accessed 12 August 2018.

  • March 2018
    Anna Bryson Expert Evidence to Oireachtas Joint Committee on Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement

    Expert Evidence on Oral History Archive, Implementation and Reconciliation Group and Statements of Acknowledgement.

    You can watch the televised evidence and access the full transcript here.

  • March 2018
    Kieran McEvoy Expert Evidence to Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement

    Expert Evidence includes focus on National Security, the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, The Implementation and Reconciliation Group, and the proposed Statute of Limitations.

    You can watch the televised evidence and access the full transcript here.

  • April 2017
    Kieran McEvoy Expert Evidence to House of Commons Defence Select Committee

    This report addresses the issues of the legality of a statute of limitations for armed forces who served in Northern Ireland.

    You can see the televised evidence and access the Select Committee Report here.

  • April 2017

    QUB team and civil society partners produced model to break the ‘National Security logjam.’

    Independent Mechanism to Oversee Redactions for Dealing with the Past Final 3rd April 2017

    Appendix on Criteria for Redaction of Information Final 3rd April 2017

  • April 2016
    Academic article overview on SHA and Dealing with the Past

    Overview by Prof Kieran McEvoy and Dr Anna Bryson.

  • September 2015
    NIO Policy Paper – Summary of Measures for SHA Bill 2015

    This NIO policy paper sets out what will be included in the Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech 2015.
    The Bill proposes to create the legislative framework for delivery on commitments made in the Stormont House Agreement relating to the legacy of the Troubles.

    For comparative purposes, we include it here alongside the Draft Model Bill prepared by a drafting committee comprised of representatives of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, individual academics and visiting scholars from the Queen’s University of Belfast and the Ulster University

  • SEPTEMBER 2015
    Stormont House Agreement Model Bill – Explanatory Notes

    These explanatory notes relate to the Model Implementation Bill for the Stormont House Agreement prepared by a drafting committee comprised of representatives of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, individual academics and visiting scholars from the Queen’s University of Belfast and the Ulster University (the Model Implementation Bill is published separately here under ‘Stormont House Agreement’ outputs) . These notes have been prepared in order to assist the reader of the Model Bill and to help inform debate on it (referred to as “the Act” in the text of the Model Bill).

  • SEPTEMBER 2015
    Stormont House Agreement Model Implementation Bill

    The Stormont House Agreement (SHA) provides for a set of new institutions to deal with the past in Northern Ireland namely:

    The Historical Investigations Unit (HIU): ‘an independent body to take forward investigations into outstanding Troubles-related deaths.’

    An Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR) ‘to enable victims and survivors to seek and privately receive information about the deaths of their next of kin.’

    An Oral History Archive ‘to provide a central place to share experiences and narratives related to the Troubles.’

    An Implementation and Reconciliation Group ‘to oversee themes, archives, and information recovery.’

    It also provides recommendations for services for victims and survivors, including a Mental Trauma Service. The implementation of the above SHA institutions requires detailed legislation which is scheduled to be introduced into Westminster in October 2015.

    As part of a collaborative QUB Business Alliance Project between the CAJ and QUB School of Law, led by Professor Kieran McEvoy, an expert drafting group was established to produce an unofficial Model Bill in parallel to the official process. The attached Model Bill is based on the provisions of the Stormont House Agreement, and is designed to provide a benchmark of what the Bill would look like if the Agreement is legislated for in good faith. Those involved in the drafting committee are: Professor Kieran McEvoy (QUB), Daniel Holder (CAJ), Professor Louise Mallinder (TJI), Brian Gormally (CAJ), Jeremy Hill (Visiting Fellow, TJI), Gemma McKeown (CAJ), Anna Bryson (QUB). The group instructed Daniel Greenberg, a barrister specialising in legislation, to draft provisions for the Model Bill.

Submissions to Public Consultations