Brother of killed Bloody Sunday man intends to prosecute soldier.

#1
Just seen on BBC Newsline,the brother Micheal Kelly intends to persue a prosecution against the soldier who shot his 'alleged' petrol bomber brother.

When Donna,the presenter,said that under the G F Agreement,the soldier wont go to jail,the brother replied that 'soldiers are not covered by the GFA' & should be jailed.

No link as yet but the Newsline programme will be up in a bit on the link below..

BBC - BBC One Programmes - BBC Newsline
 
#2
I hope this fenian cnut is denied legal aid.

Execution(slow and painful) would be a good idea for him.
 
#3
Has been being talked about by various different legal bods of my aquaintance since the Saville publication.

The opinion of those who could be said to be "in the know" is that he's being a very naughty boy and might just get his fingers rapped if he isn't a little less loud. Or words to that effect.
 
#4
Wants more than his 'fingers rapped'. What sort of moron thinks all 'players' can be released without completing their sentences and he can try and drag a retired soldier into court 38 years after the event?
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Kelly's brother may wish to prosecute, but it wont go anywhere. Saville Inquiry was specific in that anything said there cannot be used for prosecution.
 
#7
I assume he is seeking a civil prosecution rather than a criminal one?
 
#8
Maybe Missy Cherry, as an 'Oomin Rites' lawyer will try and get involved in this as a test case to see if 'MoreCash4Me' can be screwed out of the public purse...... (all alleged of course)
 
#9
Perhaps relatives of all those killed & injured by the republicans in their various guises should try to sue McGuinness, Adams & other members of the IRA for their culpability!!!
 
#10
A significant number of soldiers from 1 PARA killed innocent people that day, personally, I have long believed that at least some of them committed murder (and the Saville Enquiry confirmed this) and should be made to stand trial. At least one of them is a cold-blooded murdering cnut, in fact a multiple murderer. If a relative of one of those killed wants his day in court then I don't blame him frankly, I know I would if I was in his position. I have no hesitation in stating my belief that had those soldiers not done what they did that day, hundreds of British soldiers, including a number of my comrades, would be alive now, and Martin and Gerry would not be swanking it around the place as Ministers of the Crown.
 
#11
Have you ever been in a riot? It is a scary place. I was stationed in Strand Rd late 70s early 80s and every weekend William St/Waterloo place would kick off. We were young ourselves, and up for it, but mostly our job was to contain the situation. Sometimes the noise would come to an abrupt stop and the crowd would scatter.This was often a sign that a gunman was possibly in the area . Cue us cocking weapons and taking cover. Never once was I fired upon in that situation,but we were all pretty wound up and a truth be known a bit frightened.
I grew up in Ulster with the "troubles" so was fairly used to the hatred some people had for the SF.
I can imagine what happened on Bloody Sunday and I sometimes feel that "there but for the grace of God etc"
For you Sir to call any of the Paras a murderer tells me you do not even remotely understand what was happening in the city at the time,or going through the minds of those on the ground.
Idiots like you fan the flames of unrest and hatred that real men have to extinguish,so please refrain from your stupid,childish,and wrong commentary.
In language you can understand,Piss off.
 
#12
Saville's report gave his opinion on what had probably happened, based on the evidence. A conviction would require proof beyond all reasonable doubt. After 40 years I can't see that happening.
The CPS can take over a private prosecution and then offer no evidence. It has happened before.
 
#13
I'm not knowledgable of all the legal aspects of this but if that Soldier gets prosecuted now after so long, it would be very wrong on the one hand because I can't see how any conviction would be safe in terms of how could you prove it beyond any reasonable doubt now and on the other hand, a lot of people would be gunning for this guy because he would be seen as a symbol of all the Soldiers who served in NI and anybody with a bee in their bonnet would see it as an opportunity to stick the knife in.

That said, also, where does it end? The floodgates are opened and next thing you know, half the republican population of the provence suddenly has suffered a horrible experience and has a need to seek legal redress against Soldiers who have caused them pain and suffering. Is anybody who did their duty there now going to come forward and be scrutinised to see if they can be accused of some deed? And, if it wasn't you, they will produce a dozen or so witness's who will say it was. Madness.

I do have doubts that anybody would try to pursue a criminal prosecution so long after the event and Mr Kelly probably knows that so they will try for a civil one and seek substantial damages. It boils down to Mr Kelly is probably looking to make a large sum of money from his brothers death.

It would be an enormous kick in the teeth to Soldiers who served there If any government allows this to happen not just because of the possibility of any legal action but also because of the principle. Bloody sunday was a terrible day. Awful things happened and people were killed but those Soldiers didn't just jump on a boat and pop over for a holiday. They were sent there by the government to police the province because the RUC couldn't police it. They were doing their job.
 
#14
This is probaly not just a move by the kelly family alone. This is another political circus which i doubt will have much substance. the Republican movement relies on the victim status any legal move and its subsequent failure will give them air time and allow them to bleat of injustice.

At a guess this is a precurser to the announcement from the cps that no further action will be taken in relation to Bloody sunday at some point this saga will finally end but the republican movement will try to wring out every second of air time out of it they can becuase without it what have they got?
 
#15
Useless self absorbed **** wit. I can't believe I stood up for you. What a waste of time.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#16
Idiots like you fan the flames of unrest and hatred that real men have to extinguish,so please refrain from your stupid,childish,and wrong commentary.
In language you can understand,Piss off.
First post from a new member or a member with a new ID specially for this post? I suggest you read Jaegers post again. And maybe a few of his others before you decide whether your opinion is 'better informed' than his.

Edited to add:

For example.....

http://www.arrse.co.uk/naafi-bar/140427-name-northern-ireland-police-station-2.html#post3389080

and

http://www.arrse.co.uk/lamp-sandbag...-c-1974-were-you-one-these-8.html#post3302768
 
#17
I'm not knowledgable of all the legal aspects of this but if that Soldier gets prosecuted now after so long, it would be very wrong on the one hand because I can't see how any conviction would be safe in terms of how could you prove it beyond any reasonable doubt now and on the other hand, a lot of people would be gunning for this guy because he would be seen as a symbol of all the Soldiers who served in NI and anybody with a bee in their bonnet would see it as an opportunity to stick the knife in.
I've got to be honest, as an Australian, my knowledge of the Troubles is pretty limited. That being said, I'm not entirely sure how Mr Kelly intends to pursue this case, but don't think he really has a hope.

If Kelly wants to go the Criminal Law route, he's going to be in for some problems. Assuming that the evidence from the Saville enquiry cannot be used for criminal trial, it would be very, very difficult to make a murder or manslaughter charge stick, because (as noted), beyond reasonable doubt is a pretty strong burden of proof, and fourty years on with little evidence, it's going to be difficult to meet it.

If Mr Kelly wants to go the Civil route and seek damages, then I suspect he is going to find he's about 35 years too late, although that would depend on how the Act is interpreted:

Limitations Act 1980(UK) s 2 said:
Time limit for actions founded on tort
An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
If relying on this section, the tort relied on is going to be Trespass to Person - the question is going to be whether the cause of action accrued on the date of the late Mr Kelly's death, or on the date that the Saville report was published. If it's the former, he's out of luck, but if it's the latter, he might be in with a chance of bringing the action. I imagine the sticking point is going to be the admissability of evidence fromt the Saville Report.

Failing that, there's section 11...

Limitations Act 1980(UK) s 11 said:
Special time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries

(1)This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person

(4)Except where subsection (5) below applies, the period applicable is three years from—

(a)the date on which the cause of action accrued; or

(b)the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured.

(5)If the person injured dies before the expiration of the period mentioned in subsection (4) above, the period applicable as respects the cause of action surviving for the benefit of his estate by virtue of section 1 of the M1Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 shall be three years from—

(a)the date of death; or

(b)the date of the personal representative’s knowledge;

whichever is the later.
Assuming that the soldiers had a duty that was breached (something like a duty to the populace not to open fire without just cause) the arguments are going to be the same as for section 2.

Overall verdict? Slim to nil chance of success by Mr Kelly, just a lot of hot air.
 
#18
RUPES
Rioting 79-80? that had died out well before then, the odd skirmish yes but nothing of the style of 70 -73. If RGJ bloke is old enough he will remember that 2RGJ were on the barriers that day and we witnessed the lot. Methinks you know very little of what your spouting about.
 
#20
Bloody sunday best laid PR ambush ever seen. I often wonder how well would have other units came out of it in similer circumstances say an RM or Scotish Bn etc any thoughts?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top