Mr. P?draig ? Muirigh:

I was involved in advising on the Stormont House Agreement. Like everything else, it was a political compromise. It was not the perfect resolution, but it was a much better process than the legacy framework will be following the Act. For example, many families had inquests or civil actions in the 1970s. Those legal processes were deeply flawed – soldiers were not compellable witnesses, families were not legally represented and there was no funding for legal representation. With the introduction of the Human Rights Act and the incorporation of the convention’s rights into domestic law – the Good Friday Agreement was pivotal in that – it meant my work changed considerably.

The committee is familiar with the Ballymurphy inquest. The original inquest in 1972 was pecuniary in nature. The more recent inquest was completely different. Families were front and centre at that inquest. They were represented by lawyers who could also make legal submissions on the scope and breadth of the inquest. They also employed forensic experts in ballistics and pathology and engineers to recreate the scene. They also had considerable disclosure, which was provided to them and allowed them to prepare for witnesses. They had access to soldiers' statements and witness testimony. The most important part was they had the facility through a public hearing, which is not allowed in this new process. That public hearing allowed the process to be transparent and the evidence to be examined and tested. I have often given the example of a witness who came to the Ballymurphy inquest and provided evidence, which in my view was to besmirch the reputation of the priest by claiming he had gone into the field where another man was shot to give him his last rites and lifted a rifle that was beside the man. When this gentleman came to give evidence at the inquest, we had disclosure and the autopsy report. The witness referred to him wearing the priest's robe as he did that and said he put the rifle up his robe. We were able to prove that was a lie because we had the autopsy photographs, which showed the priest was not wearing a robe. We had witness statements which described this priest's actions on the day and soldiers' statements. We had all that evidence and were able to dispel this attempt to besmirch this priest's reputation. We were then able to assist the coroner to come to the proper conclusion that Fr. Mullan was indeed innocent. That was a good example of a transparent process with disclosure and the opportunity to test evidence.

We often talk about the information recovery or reviews this body will do. Statements are only as good as the statement-taker. If they are not tested and families do not have access to all the information, we cannot prepare to examine, test and get the best evidence. The Ballymurphy model, as it is now known, has become the best way to get the truth in these cases. It is no accident that at the same we got these findings, the British Government announced it would end the cycle of legacy investigations. I have the ITV report from 1.19 p.m., which stated that on 11 May 2021, the Ballymurphy families left the Waterfront Hall at roughly 1 p.m. or shortly afterwards. Within minutes, this announcement was made, which culminated in the legacy Act. The Act dramatically changes that landscape. All the benefits we saw from the inquest which led to the findings of innocence are not available in this new model. It is a different model and is designed not to have the outcomes we saw in recent years in the Ballymurphy inquest and many other inquests.