Family win judicial review / Judge slams murder investigation

The PFC accompanied the family to a meeting at PSNI HQ in Derry when promises were made that the file would be disclosed to the family. At that meeting the PSNI refused to disclose the file as promised and the Thompson family walked out in disgust. As late as February 18 of this year the Minister for Victims, Des Browne MP, claimed in correspondence that a full police investigation had been carried out.

Solicitors acting on behalf of the family lodged a judicial review in the High Court claiming that the Secretary of State was under an obligation to carry out an Article 2 investigation as required by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. Today's judgement will have major implications for many cases where British soldiers and RUC officers were responsible for murders. Speaking on local radio at lunchtime, Minty Thompson, daughter of the murdered woman, said she "was overjoyed at the ruling." Though it is expected that the Secretary of State will appeal the judgement campaigners believe today's events mark a turning point for victims of state violence. Below is a PFC fact file on the background to the Kathleen Thompson case, together with a number of recent press releases regarding developments in the case.

Kathleen Thompson

During the early hours of November 6 1971 200 members of the Royal Green Jackets, a regiment of the British Army, moved into Creggan to search a house in Rathlin Drive, with instructions to arrest any males there. As they were leaving the area, empty handed, a soldier opened fire, shooting dead Kathleen Thompson, a 47-year-old mother of six children who was standing in her back garden at 129 Rathlin Drive. She was killed instantly by a single shot in the chest. The woman whose house had just been searched later said that she had heard an officer telling the soldiers to "get ready to shoot when you get outside" as they were leaving her house.

The army claimed that two shots were fired at them, and that they had replied with eight shots, one of which killed Kathleen Thompson. Civilian witnesses claim that no shots were fired at the army. Patrick Thompson, Kathleen's husband, said: "There was no exchange of shots at the time, and the only people in the street were soldiers who were shooting CS gas."

A statement released at the time by the Creggan and Foyle Hill Tenants Association read:

"Their [British army] answer has been to change their policy; they have replaced harassment with intimidation and murder. In order to carry out their murderous raid on this area they sneaked in across the fields and smashed in the door of a tenant's house.
"By this time the people in the immediate vicinity had become aware of the army's presence and came to their doors to see what was going on. They were met by a barrage of filthy language and threats by armed soldiers...Knowing that its presence was now discovered the army decided to withdraw but not before leaving its mark.

"A young mother, Mrs Kathleen Thompson, was unfortunate enough to be standing in her garden at this time. The soldiers passed this garden on their way out and one of them gave vent to his frustration by shooting her in the back."

The Soldiers' Accounts

Four 'alphabet soldiers' - A, B, C and D - gave statements about the death of Kathleen Thompson. Soldier A, a squad leader, said that he saw what appeared to be a "dustbin lid and a piece of wood appear from over the fence of 129 Rathlin Drive" before soldier D opened fire. Soldier A makes no reference to any shots being fired at the soldiers other than hearing a bang, or to seeing anything resembling a gun or a gunman in the garden where Kathleen Thompson was shot.

Soldier B, a platoon commander, said that he had heard of the incident immediately afterwards, but again no reference is made to any civilian gunmen, or gunfire directed at the army.

Soldier C, who was a member of A's section, claims to have seen up to four people in the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive, including a man holding "what appeared to be a .22 rifle" and one female. He said he took aim at the gunman, but then heard two shots and saw the gunman "slump towards the fence." He said that he was about 10 yds away at the time, with a clear sight of the gunman, whom he described as "heavily built and about 6 ft tall wearing dark clothing." He also claims to have seen "some kind of bomb" thrown from his right.

Soldier D, who killed Kathleen Thompson, claimed that as he was running down Southway he heard a single shot, possibly from a .22. "The shot appeared to come from the rear of 129 Rathlin Drive which I was opposite. I turned around and saw a flickering light and the figure of a person behind the fence of 129 Rathlin Drive. I also heard some voices coming from the area to the rear of 129 Rathlin Drive. An object was thrown in my direction. I did not see where it landed or what it was.

"I then took aim with my SLR at the figure behind the fence and fired 2 x 7.62 rounds. I could not confirm a hit, but the figure disappeared as soon as I had fired which could indicate that I did hit it. The distance between myself and the figure was about 20 yards."

Soldier D then fired a further three shots at an alleged bomber on his right, about 130 yards away, and a further three shots at a point from where he claimed another object was thrown.

This accounts for all eight shots claimed by the army. Out of 200 soldiers who were allegedly fired upon, only one soldier returned fire. Soldier A, D's squad leader, ordered him to cease firing. Soldier C also refers to the order to D to cease firing. A number of questions arise from the soldiers statements:

Soldiers A, C and D were in the same section and were moving together down Southway when the shots were fired. How then can the three give very clear, but totally different accounts, of what they could see in the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive? Photographs of the scene show that the soldiers could not possibly have had the view into the garden that they claimed to have had.

The autopsy report shows that the bullet that killed Kathleen Thompson came from above and to the left. Soldier D claimed that he was running "down Southway towards Letterkenny Road" when he fired the fatal shot. This is not possible. If the shot was fired from Southway, as soldier D claimed, then the bullet would have been travelling upwards when it hit Kathleen Thompson.
The section comprised of eight soldiers. Why were statements only taken from three members of this section, Soldiers A, C and D? Soldier B was not at the actual location of the shooting.

Soldiers C and D refer to bombers on high ground to their right. Soldier A refers to another company of soldiers in the same position at the same time. How could there be bombers in the same position as the soldiers, and why were statements not taken from any of these soldiers?

All four statements were taken by the same investigator - JR Mills - a Corporal in the Army Special Investigation Branch - at exactly half hour intervals - Soldier A, 03:30 hrs, Soldier D 04:00 hrs, Soldier C 04:30 hrs and Soldier B 05:00 hrs. These were the only statements taken and this then amounts to a two-hour investigation of a fatal incident in which these soldiers were involved. Can this in any way be considered an adequate investigation?

Why was there no evidence of any RUC involvement in the questioning of the soldiers? The RUC are duty-bound to fully investigate such events, but in this case obviously did not. The evidence of RUC involvement only relates to procedural matters, i.e. identification of the body, photographing of the scene (10 months later). These 'procedural matters' related only to the preparation of materials for the Inquest and not to a police investigation into her death. There is, as yet, no evidence of any such investigation, despite claims by the RUC that one was carried out. It must be emphasised that the preparation of documents for an Inquest does not fulfil the legal requirement on the RUC to carry out a police investigation.

Civilian Witnesses

The evidence of civilian witnesses differs substantially from that of the soldiers. None of the civilian witnesses make any reference to any shots being fired, or bombs being thrown at the soldiers. All say that the only 'bangs' that night came from British army rifles and CS gas canisters being fired. One witness, Daniel Houston, said: "I am definite that no shots were fired from our direction at the soldiers."

None of the civilian witnesses refer to anyone other than Kathleen Thompson being in the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive at the time she was killed.

Mr Thompson also described the layout of his back garden, claiming that due to the height of the fence it would have been impossible for anyone, including the soldiers who claimed to have seen a gunman in the back garden, to have seen over the fence into the garden, unless they stood on something to see over the fence.

If the soldiers were moving down Southway, a very steep hill, as they claimed they were at the time of the shooting, the gradient of the hill would have further exaggerated the height of the fence, making it impossible for any of the soldiers to have seen into the back garden of 129 Rathlin Drive.

Inquest

On November 2 1972 the inquest into the death of Kathleen Thompson delivered an open verdict. Mr Thompson was denied the opportunity to give evidence at the inquest. Despite the open verdict the DPP failed to then order any further enquiries into the circumstances of the death. This was in clear contravention of domestic and international guidelines governing the responsibilities of prosecuting authorities.

Recent Developments

In a letter dated May 1 2001 the RUC confirmed that "no police investigation file in respect of the incident resulting in Mrs Thompson's death can be found." The letter went on to state that enquiries to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Solicitor had also failed to locate a file. No official document relating to the shooting death of a mother of six exists other than the Inquest documents.

In further correspondence from the RUC dated October 10 2001 the family were informed that a further search had failed to locate an investigation file. The letter claimed that an investigation had taken place but no evidence was offered to support this claim.

It is important to point out that an official with the office of the DPP informed the Pat Finucane Centre that the RUC did not routinely carry out investigations into deaths attributed to the security forces during the period leading up to the establishment of the office of the DPP in the spring of 1972.

According to this official the archive of the DPP contains a letter from the incoming DPP instructing the RUC Chief Constable to carry out police investigations into all conflict related deaths. The PFC is of the opinion that no police investigation was ever carried out into the death of Kathleen Thompson and has now requested firm evidence of the nature of the alleged investigation from the RUC. To date the shocking fact remains that the official response to the death of Kathleen Thompson was an internal army investigation which lasted a total of two hours. The RUC did not attempt, on the available evidence, to take any statements from military or civilian witnesses. The family have confirmed that an RUC Detective removed vital forensic evidence, a bullet embedded in the wall of the house, from the scene on the night. Nothing more was heard of this evidence and the RUC have never approached the family in relation to any investigation.

This failure to investigate is in direct contravention of domestic and international law. Earlier this year the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK Government had violated Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights through its failure to conduct proper independent enquiries into specific conflict related deaths. As a result the Thompson family wrote to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) "to request what measures are now being undertaken to comply with these judgements..." On November 1 a reply was received stating that the DPP had sought the advice of Senior Counsel and a further reply would be issued within 14 days. By November 13, in other words, the Thompson family will know how the state intends to respond to their long and painful search for the truth.

To date the response has only served to rub salt into the wound. In a letter dated March 26 2001 the Compensation Agency informed the family that compensation of £84.07, (eighty four pounds and seven pence) was paid to the family in June 1980. Mr Thompson, husband of the victim, tore up the cheque.