Professor Kieran McEvoy launched the report on the murder of John Crawford, who was the victim of a sectarian killing, following ultimately successful efforts by his son Paul to find out what really happened.

The killing was carried out by the UVF in 1974 but was never claimed as the organisation was on cease-fire at the time. This report details Paul’s lengthy and painstaking engagement via an interlocutor acting on his behalf over several years to get the most information possible about the murder and a formal acknowledgement of responsibility from the UVF.

Mr Crawford said: “The report reflects on a process that began in 2016 and has taken seven years to come to fruition.  My father was an innocent man who was brutally murdered in a sectarian assassination for which no organisation ever claimed responsibility.

“My mother Eileen, now deceased, told journalists immediately after the murder in 1974, ‘we want to know who did this and it why it should happen to him.’ Like many families who lost loved ones, that has remained our quest in the ensuing five decades.’

Paul said that the original investigation had been poor and that the brief inquest in 1974 merely confirmed the cause of death.

He said: “One man, Raymond Glover, was convicted in 1978 of the murder after he was arrested for something else and confessed to being involved in my father’s killing and several others. However, because he pleaded guilty at trial there was no cross examination and opportunity to learn anything further.

“A subsequent Police Ombudsman investigation, during the tenure of Al Hutchinson as Ombudsman, was a complete waste of time. A Historical Enquiries Team report confirmed that my father was an innocent man but that determination was undermined by the fact that one of the original investigating RUC officers was dead and another refused to cooperate.

“After all of these processes, we still had many questions and I concluded that those questions could only be answered by the group responsible, the UVF.   

The report details how Paul sought to engage an interlocutor, Winston Irvine, to act on his behalf to seek information from the UVF.  

“The process took a long time as in involved agreeing a set of ground rules, with me setting out clearly the information that I was seeking, including that I was not looking for the names of those involved, and then the information being relayed back and forward over many scores of meetings via the interlocutor.

“Ultimately my family and I received answers to the questions we were seeking and a formal written acknowledgement of responsibility for the murder from the UVF. I do not believe in closure – my father was brutally and unjustifiably taken from us and that is a wound that will never heal – but as I far as I am concerned this process has delivered absolutely full answers and full resolution of what I was seeking.”

Paul stated that the process clearly showed there was no ‘one size fits’ approach to legacy.

He said: “I know that not every victim would want to engage in the kind of process in which I have been involved for that last number of years and of course no-one should ever pressurise them to do so. That was the beauty of the mechanism proposed in the Stormont House Agreement. It provided for investigations, but it also provided victims with a choice to engage in exactly this kind of interlocutor process to armed groups in which I have been involved and which has delivered for me/”

Professor Kieran McEvoy said he was asked to write up this report and to put the work in the broader context of legacy debates on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.

He said “I pay testament to Paul’s courage and tenacity in have initiated and seen this process through – but victims should not have to do that. It is the responsibility of the state to provide such mechanisms and the state has failed Paul and thousands of other victims.

“As was recognised in the Stormont House Agreement, in addition to proper investigations, one of the ways in which information can be gleaned is from the groups themselves that are responsible for past violence. Information can only be accessed in this way if there are armed groups who have the political will and the capacity to provide that information and if there are effective mechanisms - such as through the work of an interlocutor.

“The Stormont House Agreement provided victims with a range of options including engaging via interlocutors with armed groups – in exactly the way that Paul has done in this case. While the current UK legacy bill has been rightly castigated for closing down victims’ access to the courts,  its lack of proper investigative powers and the amnesty scheme, that Bill has also seen the UK government abandon the interlocutor process which was agreed to in the Stormont House Agreement and in a treaty between the UK and Irish governments.

“Sadly, the people who will suffer most as a result of the abandoning of the Stormont House Agreement in the current legacy legislation are those victims who could otherwise have gained information from armed groups as Paul has done.”  

 

 

 

Media

For media inquiries, please contact comms.office@qub.ac.uk