About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Background

Manus Deery died on 19 May 1972 aged 15 as a result of injuries received when he was struck by fragments of a bullet fired by Private William Glasgow, from an observation post on the Derry City walls.

The inquest was heard by Justice Colton, sitting as a Coroner without a jury – as governed by section 18 of the Coroner’s Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

The substantial issue to be considered by the inquest related to “how” the death was caused. In this case the death was caused by an agent of the State and that being so, an examination of “how” the death was caused must comply with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Justice Colton reiterated the statement by Justice Stephens in Re Jordan NIQB 11: “An inquest which does not have the capacity to reach a verdict ‘leading to a determination of whether the force used … was or was not justified’ would not comply with the requirement of Article 2.”

At the outset, Justice Colton emphasised that he had no hesitation or any doubt in making it clear that “Manus Deery was a totally innocent victim” who “was not involved in any unlawful organisation or unlawful activity on the night of his death”, and “did not pose a threat to soldiers or to anyone else”.

As such, Justice Colton stated that, above everything else, the outcome of the inquest must be seen to vindicate fully the character of Manus Deery.

Private William Glasgow

Private William Glasgow was the soldier who fired the fatal shot. Having died in 2001, Justice Colton explained that the “only account available from him was the statement he made to Royal Military Police which was made on the day following the incident” in May 1972. The statement was admitted under Rule 17, in which Private Glasgow stated that he had “no doubts whatsoever was carrying a weapon”.

No evidence of gunman present

Justice Colton was satisfied that neither Manus nor any of his friends possessed a weapon or rifle or any object that could have been mistaken for a weapon of any sort.

The key issue was therefore whether or not in fact there was a gunman present at all.

The evidence in relation to the presence of a gunman came from the two soldiers who were on the observation post – Soldier B and Private Glasgow.

Soldier B was “uncertain as to whether there was a gunman present and in truth he was very much reliant on the positive assertion from his colleague Private Glasgow”.

Justice Colton’s impression of Soldier B’s evidence was that he had little reliable recall of what actually happened on the night in question – although he did not consider that he was a dishonest witness, “on the key issue of the alleged presence of a gunman his evidence was of limited value”.

Private Glasgow, who “was not challenged or probed” on the contents of his statement; and when statements were made available from civilians giving a different account than his, he was not questioned or asked about the matter further.

The civilian witnesses were honest in giving their evidence “and at least one of them would have been in a position to notice the gunman if he was present”.

In any event, the most important objective evidence in this regard was that of Mr Myers – who would have been “in the best position to see a gunman if he was present”.

Mr Myer’s evidence convinced Justice Colton “that there was no gunman in the car park or at the front of the funnel as described by the soldiers at the time of the shooting”.

Unjustified shooting

In any event the discharge of the round was unjustified - even on the account of the soldiers there was no evidence that the gunman was about to use the rifle for an offensive purpose and at all times it was held in the “trail position”.

There was no basis on which this shooting could be justified in law.

As to whether or not Private Glasgow simply discharged his weapon at Manus and his friends without any honest belief about the presence of a gunman - only Private Glasgow himself could know the answer as to his honest belief.

Having not had the opportunity of hearing Private Glasgow, Justice Colton stated that he “could not properly come to a finding that he had no such belief”.

Conclusion

Overall Justice Colton was left with the impression that the investigating authorities too readily accepted accounts from the soldiers without critical analysis; and that “that they too readily dismissed the accounts of civilians who challenged or raised issues about the accounts given by the soldiers at the time”.

Even against the background of on-going violence at that time, nothing could excuse “the lack of vigorous and independent investigation of the death”.

Justice Colton concluded that: