Legacy body carrying out 50 investigations into 96 deaths
The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), which became operational in May 2024, said the number of people coming to it continues to grow.
The ICRIR was created by the previous Conservative government's controversial Legacy Act which halted scores of civil cases and inquests into Troubles deaths.
Bereaved families, victims and certain public authorities can instead request the ICRIR carry out an investigation.
While Labour has committed to repealing the Act and has said legacy inquests will resume, it is continuing with the ICRIR.
In its latest accountability update, the body said: 'In the period from May 1 2024 to March 31 2025, 154 people (requesting individuals) have come to the commission.
'There are 50 live investigations under way.'
The report said the 50 investigations relate to 96 deaths.
Commissioner for investigations Peter Sheridan said: 'There are forensic opportunities. There are investigative lines of inquiry.
'Our work is not a 'light-touch review'.
'We're trying to encourage people and build confidence in this commission.
'I will sit down with anyone and explain how, in every single case, I put senior investigating officers in to investigate all of the information available.'
The commission, headed by former Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, has faced opposition from political parties and victims' organisations in Northern Ireland, and its powers have been subject to legal challenges.
The latest case which the ICRIR has said publicly it is investigating is the murder of an RUC reserve constable by the IRA in October 1982.
John Eagleson, a father of three, was shot in the chest while making his way to work on his motorbike.
The commission is also investigating the murder of Judge Rory Conaghan, who was shot dead by an IRA gunman in front of his daughter at their Belfast home in September 1974.
The accountability update said the ICRIR now has 172 staff, with 66% based in Belfast and 34% in London.
It said: 'As at March 31 2025, 43 staff work in the information recovery (IR) team of the investigations directorate; 65% are based in London with 35% based in Belfast.
'This includes senior investigating officers, IR team supervisors, investigating officers and investigation support officers.
'The wider operations work also includes case support and findings.
'Of the 86 people working in operations, 45% have investigative experience in Northern Ireland.
'A further 36% have investigative experience solely outside of Northern Ireland.
'The remaining 19% of people have other relevant experience for the delivery of the commission's work.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UK could fail to meet commitment to spend 80% of foreign aid on gender equality projects
Ministers are considering scrapping a commitment to spend 80% of foreign aid on projects supporting gender equality, the Guardian has learned. Critics warned the move could worsen the impact of Donald Trump's rollback of funding for diversity and aid projects abroad, which has affected maternal and reproductive health services in developing countries. The Conservative government committed in 2023 to ensuring that 80% of the Foreign Office's bilateral aid programmes have a focus on gender equality by 2030. Labour ministers reaffirmed the commitment earlier this year. Stephen Doughty, a junior Foreign Office minister, said ministers would continue to work towards the target in March, even after the government had announced it was cutting international aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP to spend more on defence. Under the target, 80% of aid spending must go to programmes that have gender as a component by 2030, though it does not need to be the main focus. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, told MPs last month that he could not 'commit to decisions made by the last government' and it was 'for us to look at this afresh'. The government spent £15.3bn in aid in 2023, the latest year for which final figures are available. Of this, £10bn was bilateral aid spent directly on projects in developing countries, instead of multilateral institutions such as the UN. Provisional figures suggest that the UK's aid spending fell to £14.1bn in 2024, an 8% decrease on the previous year, with £11.3bn going to bilateral aid. A government impact assessment said in July that the government's aid cuts meant that in Africa – where half of the UK's bilateral aid goes – spending was being reduced in women's health and emergency response in countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The assessment warned that 'reductions to health spending risk an increase in disease burden and ultimately in deaths, impacting in particular those living in poverty, women, children and people with disabilities'. It also said that there would be cuts to girls' education programmes in countries including Ethiopia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria and to projects encouraging women's participation in peace processes, with specific conflicts including Ukraine and Sudan supported at a reduced scale. Critics warned that scrapping the 80% commitment could compound the impact of the US and UK aid cuts and exacerbate what feels like 'a global war on women'. Labour has promised to prioritise women and girls in government including by promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights abroad, and tackling gender-based violence. Harriet Harman, the former acting Labour leader, was appointed UK special envoy for women and girls in March 2025. Sarah Champion, the Labour chair of the international aid committee, said: 'The UK's commitments to women and girls are not just words on a page, they're a lifeline that gives hope to some of the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet. 'The Trump administration immediately cut all international maternal and reproductive health support, and just last month, burned contraception it had bought for low-income countries. Now is the time for the UK to step up our commitment to gender programming, not step away. 'When we look at conflicts, climate impact and nutrition it is always women and girls who bear the brunt. Our aid programming gives them hope and opportunities in what feels like a global war on women. We can't take that away from them now.' Alex Farley, a policy manager at Bond, the UK network for NGOs, said that 'at a time when women's rights globally are under attack and the US has been gutting all gender equality and diversity programming, it's definitely very worrying to see the UK following suit.' 'Gender equality programming has already been put at disproportionate risk in the government's cuts to UK aid. Upholding the 80% commitment, alongside stand-alone gender programmes, is really important for the UK to send a signal showing that it's committed to tackling gender inequality rather than stepping back.' Amelia Whitworth, head of policy, campaigns and youth at Plan International UK said: 'Anti-gender movements are growing, humanitarian and climate crises are intensifying, and girls and women are being hit hardest. In a world where girls' rights are being rolled back, the UK has to hold the line. 'With USAID slashing over 80% of its programmes – including funding for gender and DEI initiatives – and European donors retreating, the need for the UK to uphold its gender equality commitments has never been greater.' An FCDO spokesperson confirmed that the government was 'carefully reviewing the viability of existing commitments' after cutting aid spending to 0.3%. 'As the foreign secretary has said, women and girls are a fundamental priority,' the spokesperson said. 'From appointing a dedicated special envoy for women and girls to improving energy access for 15 million women worldwide, the UK has demonstrated how integrating gender equality into its international work can transform lives. We will continue to champion the rights of women and girls globally and ensure that gender equality is embedded across all the department's priorities.'
Belfast Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Special Branch agent: ‘I prevented Provos pulling off Army massacre on par with Narrow Water'
Martin McGartland tells podcast of IRA plot to blow up three trucks loaded with soldiers coming off Larne ferry Martin McGartland has claimed that if he had not prevented an IRA bomb attack on an Army convoy coming off the Larne ferry, it would have been a massacre on the scale of the Narrow Water atrocity. The Belfast man is one of the most high-profile agents in the history of the Troubles. A 2008 movie was made of his memoir Fifty Dead Men Walking, starring Jim Sturgess as McGartland and Ben Kingsley as his handler.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
America is right to attack Starmer's record on human rights
Aren't human rights wonderful? I'm sure many of our readers will recall the dark days before the passing of the Human Rights Act: child-snatchers prowling the evening streets to deny parents the right to a family life, gruesome thugs free to torture any citizen who might try and engage in a free election. 1997 really was awful. It's easy to mock our unfortunate new state religion, but even the most hardened human-rights sceptic will be heartened to read the US State Department's annual report into human rights in Britain. America apparently takes a different view on domestic affairs than the likes of Lord Hermer, warning that in 2024 'The human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom' and that there are now 'significant… issues'. The issues in question relate to our handling of free speech, particularly the 'enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression' in the aftermath of the Southport riots. The State Department seems aggrieved that the British Government called on US tech firms to 'censor speech deemed misinformation or 'hate speech'', echoing the dismay of figures within the administration over the treatment of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after posting (and then deleting) a message judged to be racial incitement. It's hard to dispute the measured criticism of our free expression issues, nor the suggestion of backsliding after the creation of censorship powers under the Online Safety Act. But what makes this report so remarkable is how similar it is in form – if not character – to those expected of authoritarian rogue states like Belarus. After each example of free-speech violations, we are reminded of the condemnation of 'media freedom NGOs', as if our Government can no longer be trusted by our closest ally to maintain an independently liberal state. It is meddling of the highest order, but meddling is what the US State Department is designed to do. It has since the end of the Second World War sought to influence the domestic affairs of foreign nations, a position garnering endless criticism from the isolationist wing of the Republican Party who perceived it as a needlessly antagonistic mode of diplomatic relations. The criticism isn't just domestic: countries as diverse as South Korea, El Salvador and Poland have voiced their irritation at attempts to steer their domestic politics towards America's sola fide conception of human rights, which apparently had something to do with flying BLM flags outside consulates and not complaining about American-funded NGOs. This state of affairs generally suited the United Kingdom. After all, our Foreign Office is rather skilled in its own art of heavy-handed moralising, with the notion that it ought to promote the global framework of '#BeKind' over British interests. We thought we'd never find ourselves on the receiving end of a patronising communique. Weren't we a sensible country? But the re-election of Donald Trump changed the State Department — and every other federal department under the president's control — beyond recognition. Staff budgets have been slashed, LGBTQI+ flags have been pulled down, and relations with foreign allies reevaluated. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, has made clear that the agency will serve only in the interests of the American people. We're lucky, then, that the American people seem to be so concerned with our — and Europe's — creeping descent into illiberalism. Some will struggle to accept being chastised by the US. Doesn't America have its own issues with human rights? Hasn't it persecuted non-citizens over comments made on the Israel-Gaza conflict, knowing they are not covered by First Amendment protections? These objections have some merit, but are unlikely to influence those within the department. Issues of historic corruption in Ukraine didn't mean we withheld military support after Putin's invasion. No nation is pure: we'd suffer if well-founded and constructive criticism of allies was always considered off-limits. There's a much more coherent rebuttal to be made of the State Department's report, and it concerns its methodology. If human rights only seem to be 'things the people in charge think are good' rather than a coherent moral framework for governance, perhaps they should be jettisoned altogether. I'm sure our Prime Minister, the former human rights barrister, can see the funny side.
