Labour accused of ‘two-tier justice' in Northern Ireland
Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, previously said the decision was taken by the Government as part of its 'absolute commitment to the Human Rights Act '.
Mr Francois said: 'The treatment of veterans in the context of Northern Ireland's troubled legacy is not merely a legal or historical matter – it is a litmus test for the Government's broader commitment to the Armed Forces.
'By prioritising the interests of human rights lawyers – and figures like Gerry Adams – the Government risks alienating those it relies on to defend the nation.'
Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, represented Mr Adams in the past while working as a private barrister.
The minister insisted that his work was unconnected to the legislation paving the way for Mr Adams to claim compensation.
The Attorney General has refused to disclose whether he advised the Government on its decision to repeal sections of the Legacy Act.
The Northern Ireland Office has been contacted for comment.
A chilling message to veterans who risked their lives
By Mark Francois
Over 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. For decades, under Operation Banner, these troops were deployed to one of the most politically complex and dangerous theatres in modern British history.
Over 760 British soldiers lost their lives, and more than 6,000 were wounded, many with life-changing injuries, inflicted by both Republican and so-called Loyalist terrorists. Bombings, shootings, and ambushes not only scarred the soldiers, but also the communities they were sent to protect.
Now, consider the reaction of those who served – including those still living with the physical and psychological scars of that conflict – to the news that the Government plans to repeal parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Shockingly, these changes could enable figures like Gerry Adams to sue the British taxpayer under the guise of 'upholding' the Human Rights Act.
This decision sends a chilling message to the veterans who risked their lives to uphold the rule of law during one of the most difficult chapters in our nation's history. It undermines their sacrifices and prioritises the interests of those who were, in many cases, their adversaries in that mission.
Adding insult to injury
Adding insult to injury, the Government's actions reflect a growing detachment from the veterans' community. The downgrading of the veterans minister from a Cabinet position to a Parliamentary under-secretary of state – even one as distinguished as the current officeholder – is deeply concerning. This move can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to diminish the voice of veterans, particularly those from Operation Banner, at a time when their needs are being systematically ignored.
The implications extend far beyond historical arguments. The British Army is already facing a recruitment and retention crisis, and these actions risk deepening the sense of disillusionment among serving personnel. Soldiers may quite rightly question whether this Government of human rights lawyers truly 'has their back'.
Specifically, an order now going through Parliament, at the behest of Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, would delete key parts of the Legacy Act 2023, which currently defends British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland from an endless cycle of investigation and re-investigation, often inspired by Sinn Fein.
Even more appallingly, the same order, which Labour MPs have already voted in favour of once, in a preliminary committee, but which Conservatives opposed, would delete key clauses in the Act, which would enable Gerry Adams and some of his supporters to sue the British taxpayer.
Despite solemn pledges from Sir Keir Starmer, at Prime Minister's Questions, that he would seek to prevent such an outcome, the order, as drafted, still contains these outrageous provisions.
A litmus test over the Armed Forces
This is an obvious case of two-tier justice: one for our Northern Ireland veterans (many of whom were recruited from Northern towns in England, in what we would today call Red Wall constituencies) and another for the likes of Gerry Adams and his cronies. How any self-respecting Labour MP could possibly vote for this – when it comes before the Commons in a few months' time – and then still look their constituents in the eye defies belief.
The treatment of veterans in the context of Northern Ireland's troubled legacy is not merely a legal or historical matter – it is a litmus test for the Government's broader commitment to the Armed Forces. By prioritising the interests of human rights lawyers – and figures like Gerry Adams –the Government risks alienating those it relies on to defend the nation.
It is perhaps little surprise therefore that on Friday, a group of veterans launched a parliamentary petition opposing Labour's two-tier justice – on one hand pursuing Northern Ireland veterans while seemingly supporting figures like Gerry Adams.
If you also agree that we should defend those who defended us and upheld the rule of law, you can sign the petition below to show your support: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/725716
In summary, if this Labour Government still presses ahead with these very ill-advised changes, it must remember one simple truth: a nation that forgets the past sacrifices of its soldiers risks losing the trust of those who would serve in the future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Illegal immigrant can stay in UK for daughter he does not speak to
An asylum judge allowed an illegal immigrant stay in Britain despite ' contradictory findings ' that his relationship with his daughter was good – but had also broken down. Andrew Kung'u Gichuhi, from Kenya, won his appeal to remain in the country, with a new hearing pending, after an immigration judge said Mr Gichuhi could stay in the UK because he had a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, and it would not be right to expect her to leave Britain. But, later on in her judgment, she appeared to contradict her earlier comments, saying there had been a breakdown in the father-daughter relationship. After the Home Office argued that her findings were 'irrational', an upper tribunal judge has now ruled that Mr Gichuhi's claim should be heard again. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations on human rights grounds. 'Irrational' ruling Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to kerb judges' powers to block deportations with new 'common sense' rules to clarify how they interpret the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article eight, which provides the right to a family life. The Home Secretary's rules are also intended to strengthen the public interest test, in which courts need to be hold themselves accountable and only grant exceptions to laws with justified reasons. Mr Gichuhi was living in the UK illegally as an unmarried partner of a British national when he applied for citizenship. The Home Office rejected his application, arguing that there were 'no insurmountable obstacles to family life with his partner continuing in Kenya'. The Home Office said he did not have a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, from a previous marriage. Mr Gichuhi appealed the decision to a lower-tier tribunal. The unnamed judge found that there was a 'genuine and subsisting' parental relationship between Gichuhi and his daughter, who 'could not reasonably be expected to leave the United Kingdom'. But later in the judgment, she said the relationship was 'broken down' and that there was 'no contact' between the Mr Gichuhi and his daughter. In the appeal against the 'irrational' finding, the Home Office said 'a relationship could not be both genuine and subsisting and broken down'. It added the judge had also been 'speculating about the possibility of future contact'. Those representing Mr Gichuhi argued that the judge had been 'entitled' to find that the relationship was subsisting, because he sent £100 a month to his daughter's bank account. They said he sent the money on an 'entirely voluntary basis', and his daughter had not returned the money. However, while they argued that a relationship could be 'genuine and subsisting' in 'the absence of contact', they accepted that 'subsisting was the antithesis of broken down'. For this reason, Mr Gichuhi's lawyers accepted that the judge's position was 'at least contradictory' and she had not explained how 'the contradictory positions were reconciled'. Upper Tribunal Judges Adrian Seelhoff and Sean O'Brien concluded: 'Consequently, the judge's finding at that [Mr Gichuhi's] relationship with his daughter had 'broken down' is inconsistent with her finding later in that paragraph that it was 'subsisting'. 'No attempt had been made to reconcile these contradictory findings. It follows that the judge's decision involved the making of an error of law.' They ruled that the case must be reheard afresh by another judge.
Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Mum who abused son so badly he had to have his legs amputated to be freed early from prison
A mother who abused her child so badly he had to have his legs amputated is to be released early from prison. Jody Simpson and Anthony Smith were both jailed for 10 years in 2018 for torturing their son, Tony Hudgell, who is now 10. He was just 41 days old when he was assaulted by the pair and left untreated and in agony for 10 days. The attack caused multiple fractures, dislocations and blunt trauma to the face, leading to organ failure, toxic shock and sepsis. The damage meant both his legs had to be amputated. Simpson was due to be released on licence at the halfway point of her prison sentence in August 2022. However, then justice secretary Dominic Raab referred her case to the Parole Board and her release was put on hold. A spokesperson for the Parole Board on Wednesday confirmed Simpson was set to be released. Paula Hudgell, Tony's adoptive mother, criticised the decision in a social media post. "Tony has life long injuries every day he suffers due to her hands," she wrote on X. Tony's case led to a public outcry and calls for child abusers to be given life behind bars. Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, who led a campaign for the changes, which are also known as Tony's Law, said on X: "I'm backing Tony as he faces the early release of his abuser - his birth mum. "Tony lives every day with the pain caused by her crimes as a baby. We must do more to protect children like him." Tony has since gone on to be a successful fundraiser for charity - for which he has been honoured by the Royal Family. A statement from the Parole Board said: "We can confirm that a panel of the Parole Board has directed the release of Jody Simpson following an oral hearing. "Parole Board decisions are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community. "A panel will carefully examine a huge range of evidence, including details of the original crime, and any evidence of behaviour change, as well as explore the harm done and impact the crime has had on the victims." It added: "Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority." A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "This was a horrific crime that saw Tony Hudgell mercilessly tortured by his birth parents and our thoughts remain with him and his loved ones. "Now that the independent Parole Board has directed her release, Jody Simpson will be subject to strict supervision and licence conditions. She faces an immediate return to prison if she breaks the rules."
BreakingNews.ie
41 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Pope meets child protection advisory board amid call for zero tolerance on abuse
Pope Leo XIV met with members of the Vatican's child protection advisory commission on Thursday for the first time amid questions about his past handling of clergy sex abuse cases. There are also demands from survivors that he enacts a true policy of zero tolerance for abuse across the Catholic Church. Advertisement The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, which is made up of religious and lay experts in fighting abuse as well as survivors, called the hour-ong audience a 'significant moment of reflection, dialogue, and renewal of the church's unwavering commitment to the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people'. The group said it updated history's first American pope on its activities, including an initiative to help church communities in poorer parts of the world prevent abuse and care for victims. The Vatican did not provide the text of Leo's remarks or make the audio of the audience available to reporters. Pope Francis created the commission early on in his pontificate to advise the church on best practices and placed a trusted official, Boston's then-archbishop, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, in charge. Advertisement But as the abuse scandal spread globally during Francis' 12-year pontificate, the commission lost its influence its crowning recommendation — the creation of a tribunal to judge bishops who covered up for predator priests — went nowhere. After many years of reform and new members, it has become a place where victims can go to be heard and bishops can get advice on crafting guidelines to fight abuse. Cardinal O'Malley turned 80 last year and retired as archbishop of Boston, but he remains president of the commission and headed the delegation meeting with Leo in the Apostolic Palace. It has often fallen to Cardinal O'Malley to speak out on cases that have arrived at the Vatican, including one that remains on Leo's desk: The fate of the ex-Jesuit artist, the Rev Marko Rupnik, who has been accused by two dozen women of sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse over decades. Advertisement After coming under criticism that a fellow Jesuit had apparently received preferential treatment, Francis in 2023 ordered the Vatican to waive the statute of limitations on the case and prosecute him canonically. But as recently as March, the Vatican still had not found judges to open the trial. Meanwhile, the victims are still waiting for justice and Rev Rupnik continues to minister, with his supporters defending him and denouncing a 'media lynching' campaign against him. Leo, the Chicago-born former Cardinal Robert Prevost, has been credited by victims of helping to dismantle an abusive Catholic movement in Peru, where he served as bishop for many years. But other survivors have asked him to account for other cases while he was a superior in the Augustinian religious order, bishop in Peru and head of the Vatican's bishops' office. Advertisement The main US survivor group, Snap, has also called for Leo to adopt the US policy calling for any priest who has been credibly accused of abuse to be permanently removed from ministry.
