Bereaved family intend to apply to access Scappaticci will
Earlier this week, the High Court in London ruled that the will of Freddie Scappaticci, believed to be Britain's top agent inside the IRA, will not be made public.
In 2003, media reports claimed that Scappaticci had spied on the IRA for the British government, and that while working for both organisations, 'was responsible for the torture and murder of dozens of alleged IRA informers'.
Scappaticci, from west Belfast, had always denied the claims before his death aged 77 in 2023.
In a ruling on Monday, Sir Julian Flaux ordered that Scappaticci's will should be sealed for 70 years, meaning that its contents will not be made public.
The judge said that this is the first time, except for members of the royal family, where a court has ordered that a will not be made open to public inspection in the way the document would usually be.
He said: 'There is nothing in the will, which is in fairly standard form, which could conceivably be of interest to the public or the media.'
On Tuesday, solicitor Kevin Winters said his firm acts on behalf of more than 30 plaintiffs in ongoing High Court proceedings against the State and Scappaticci.
He said the existence of a will 'points to this man having assets and funds, the origin of which will greatly interest the next of kin of so many murder victims'.
'We are now instructed to look at making applications to the High Court in Belfast to access the will,' he said.
'All our clients will have a vested interest in the out workings of its contents as they will likely touch upon liability in the cases, as well as determining which defendant may be liable to pay out damages.
'We shouldn't forget that, as well as the State agencies, families are suing Freddie Scappaticci on the basis that he's a mark for damages.
'That entitlement to continue the actions didn't end with Stakeknife's death.
'The cases against his estate continue, so we're interested in the out workings of this testamentary document.'
Mr Winters added that the families 'won't settle in being told that the details of his will are to be shelved for 70 years'.
'They've battled for too long now and won't be easily fobbed off in trying to get more information,' he said.
'Their interest will be piqued all the more on the revelation that a number of years ago we queried Scappaticci's legal aid status, only to be told that he was in receipt of state benefits.
'We now intend to revisit the circumstances in which this State-funded killer was able to claim State benefits to support his legal aid status in defending the ongoing tranche of cases against him.
'From the sale of his house in Guildford, he presents as a person of means.
'That has to be the subject of an investigation and to that end, we look forward to a renewed judicial scrutiny in Belfast into Stakeknife's finances.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Pictured: Hairdresser who dad-in-law Mark Gibbon 'tried to drown' near Disney World
Mark Gibbon has been charged by US police with the attempted murder of his daughter-in-law Jasmine Wyld after allegedly trying to drown her in a swimming pool while on holiday This is the first picture of the young British hairdresser whose father-in-law allegedly tried to drown in a swimming pool near Disney World in Florida. Jasmine Wyld, 33, reportedly feared for her life after it is said she got into a heated row with Mark Gibbon, 62, about his will during a luxury holiday. It is alleged Gibbon, who has a film and television lighting firm Ultralight in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, pushed and held Ms Wyld's head under water in the pool multiple times. He has today been charged with attempted second-degree murder and battery by police in the US, where the family had been staying at a rental home at the Solterra Resort in Davenport, Florida. The grandfather is being held at Polk County Jail. Ms Wyld shares two children with Gibbon's son, Alex, who had previously worked with his father at the film and television lighting firm. He resigned as director in April 2023, it is understood. Gibbon Snr has since renamed the company as MRG Lighting. He is listed as the sole director. Photographs on Facebook show Ms Wyld, a hairdresser from Buckinghamshire, happily smiling with Alex and their two children. Companies House documents show she was previously a director of Jasmine Elizabeth Hair, but the firm was dissolved "via a voluntary strike off" in April 2024. When contacted by the Daily Mail on Wednesday, Ms Wyld reportedly declined to comment about her father-in-law's arrest. Officers had responded to reports of a disturbance in a back-yard swimming pool at around 5.20pm local time at the Solterra Resort on Sunday. According to the Polk County Sheriff's Office, Gibbon had got into a spat with Ms Wyld over the "stipulations of his will". Deputies wrote: "She advised that she could not breathe and believed that she was going to drown. [The victim] advised that she had to fight Mark in order to get away from him and from under the water but he kept pushing her back under." MRG Lighting, which is Gibbon's company, has previously worked on television and film sets, as well as on music videos for and Paloma Faith. The dad, of Beaconsfield, is also listed as the only director of Sage Hairdressing. Gibbon and his daughter-in-law had been drinking before the altercation, reports Law and Crime. Ms Wyld's nine-year-old daughter jumped into the pool to try to stop the incident, police said. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said: "It's great that Polk County draws visitors from all across the world, but we expect vacationers to behave while they visit with us, just as we expect our lifelong residents to do the same. Because Mr Gibbon couldn't control his anger, he may find himself spending a lot more time in Florida than he had anticipated."
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The case for an independent Kent
I'm just back from Vancouver, where I was speaking at a fundraiser for the Free Speech Union of Canada. At the dinner afterwards I sat next to an Alberta separatist, a movement I was unaware of until now. Dating to the 19th century, it advocates for the secession of the province of Alberta and has been given a renewed impetus by the federal government's hostility to fossil fuels under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney. Petroleum is Alberta's biggest industry by far, and the revenue generated by energy exports means the province is a big contributor to Canada's national budget, with its net contributions dwarfing those of other provinces. Shouldn't Canada's liberal prime ministers just say 'thank you' instead of wagging their fingers at Albertans for not doing more to save the planet? Not surprisingly, the separatist party has done well in recent elections, and 65 per cent of United Conservative party voters say they would vote for independence in a referendum. I was told this could take place within a year. This gave me an idea about how to fix Britain's immigration problem. Why doesn't Kent county council, which changed hands from the Conservatives to Reform in May, demand that Kent secede from the United Kingdom? If it became independent it would not be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would have much more latitude when it comes to turning back the boats, processing asylum seekers offshore and deporting those illegal immigrants currently accommodated in hotels. I suppose it's possible the people-smugglers might steer their dinghies towards East Sussex instead, but that county could then follow suit. Indeed, the entire south coast could become an independent sovereign state. I know, I know. Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw from the ECHR than to break up the UK? That's the policy of Reform UK, but there are political difficulties. For one, it might jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to the ECHR in several of its provisions. That's because the only way to persuade Sinn Fein to sign up was to assure them the human rights of former terrorists would be protected by Strasbourg rather than the hated British judiciary. Would they regard the agreement as void if Britain withdrew from the Convention? Another problem with withdrawing is that it might derail the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The EU has the right to terminate the part relating to 'Law Enforcement and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' if the UK is no longer bound by the Convention. Not everyone thinks these are insurmountable obstacles. Lord Lilley, one of my Tory colleagues on the red benches, wrote an excellent paper last month for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he argued that the Belfast Agreement could survive Britain's departure from the Convention provided ECHR rights remain incorporated into Northern Ireland law, and while it's true that the EU could stop co-operating with the UK when it comes to tackling crime, why would it? 'To forgo that co-operation would be a self-inflicted loss,' he says. But I'm not confident that Nigel Farage, newly installed in No. 10, would hold his nerve when Sir Humphrey pointed out these problems. 'I think you'll find there are some more nuanced positions you could take that would confound your critics, Prime Minister.' A wily cabinet secretary would also point out that even if the UK did withdraw, it would still be party to the Geneva Refugee Convention and obliged to offer asylum to anyone with a 'well-founded fear of persecution'. The beauty of my proposal is that the newly independent country of Kentland wouldn't be bound by the Refugee Convention either. According to Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States: 'A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.' Admittedly, that Convention has not yet been widely ratified, but m'learned friends tell me this 'clean slate' principle is broadly accepted. So there's the solution. Make Kent – or the entire south coast if necessary – an independent sovereign state and dispatch a bunch of Reform councillors armed with harpoons to intercept the small boats. Any undocumented migrants that got through could be sent to the Isle of Sheppey for 'processing'. I imagine the prospect of being held in a pen on Sheep Island for several years would be enough to put off even the most determined.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The lies of the land
You can gauge the fragility of an ideology by the blind fury with which it reacts to questioning. So it is with neo-liberalism. Teacher Simon Pearson, for example, was sacked for suggesting that the jailing of Lucy Connolly – who said very nasty things about asylum seekers – was an example of two-tier justice and that, while her words were indefensible, she should not have been sent to prison. One could counter that opinion, but only at the risk of coming into collision with hard facts concerning sentencing – hence the sacking. Best to get shot of your political opponents, especially when he or she is demonstrably correct. Only by doing that can the ideology cling on. The other form of defence, if you are the adherent of an ideology which is palpably on its way out, is to lie to people, or to withhold information from them. Just shrug your shoulders and say: 'Search me, mate – we don't have any information on that, I'm afraid.' For a good 60 years the British public have been lied to about immigration and had information withheld from them. The reason that information was withheld is because the authorities know full well that possession of it would infuriate the great mass of people. And so, when some deranged jihadi murders somebody, we are not given his ethnicity, or we are told a lie (that he is a Norwegian, say), or a truism – that he is mental. If the police released the ethnicity of the suspect every time a serious crime was committed, the public would be even more averse to continued mass immigration from cultures dissimilar to our own than they are at the moment. I still suspect that Crimewatch was taken off air a decade or so ago because the gallery of criminals displayed each week revealed a remarkable dearth of white folks in it. The programme is back, by the way, with diverse presenters and they don't do the rogues' gallery thing any more. The lying, or obfuscation, about immigration has included withholding crime figures from us. Until recently we were un-aware that foreign nationals living in the UK were 70 per cent more likely to be convicted of sexual crimes. Meanwhile Algerians were 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft. The proportion of the under-18 prison population which is of black heritage is 30 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent of under-18s in the general population. These figures are all comparatively new to us and they have been released for the simple reason that the dominant paradigm, the guff we've been fed for decades – that multiculturalism is terrific and immigrants commit no more crime than do the locals – is increasingly rejected as being not merely untrue, but absurd. The only comeback you will hear from the left on the issue of, say, young black offenders is that if they constitute 30 per cent of the under-18 prison population, then the majority of underage crime must be committed by white youths. This is what I call the Dave Allen argument, and it has been deployed over and over again in the case of the Pakistani rape gangs, despite what we might agree are its obvious flaws. So we have been lied to about crime rates among immigrants, or simply not told. But we have also been lied to about how many immigrants are here, how many will continue to flood in and what benefit they will be to society. It is quite common for the left to insist that an influx of 900,000 or so every year will not have any impact upon our crumbling infrastructure – housing, schools, the NHS and so on – despite the epic denial of reality that this involves. More recently, however, the truth has begun to leak out. While we are continually told that immigration boosts the economy, a report last year from the Office for Budget Responsibility showed that a low-skilled migrant costs the British taxpayer an average of £150,000 by the time he or she has reached pensionable age, and £500,000 if they make it to 80. This is the first time we have been given such information, and my suggestion is that in future the OBR breaks it down by individual ethnicity. Meanwhile, at the beginning of this year it was estimated that by 2063 white British people will be a minority in their own country. For decades anti-immigrant groups and right-wing politicians have warned of this and their claims were laughed off as ludicrous. Nope, not ludicrous: the truth. And of course any time conscientious politicians raised the issue of mass immigration, the liberal authorities wheeled out the great wicker man of Enoch and set it on fire, while denouncing all those who questioned the avidity with which this country yearned for suicide as 'racist' and 'far-right'. The slightly better news is that the public no longer buys this rubbish. For a long while, attitudes towards immigration among the general public seemed to soften, the consequence of being kept in the dark, being lied to and not wanting to seem 'racist' to the nice researchers. Not any more. The latest YouGov poll shows that a whopping 45 per cent of Brits are in favour of admitting precisely zero new migrants and wish for large numbers to be persuaded somehow to leave the country. That would have been an unthinkable proportion even ten years ago. Meanwhile, only a small minority believe that immigration has been mostly good for the country, and three-quarters oppose greater numbers still coming here. The lesson from this is that the centre cannot hold, that the disinformation no longer works – and that people are angry. Here, as in continental Europe, the indigenous populations have roused a little from their enforced slumber. A shame, really, that it's too late.
