Opinion

Claire Simpson: Sometimes an apology is not enough

Journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey at Castlereagh Police Station in east Belfast after having all the materials and computers returned to them after a High Court ruling that the PSNI acting on behalf of Durham Police had no legal right to the materials. Picture by Alan Lewis/Photopress
Journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey at Castlereagh Police Station in east Belfast after having all the materials and computers returned to them after a High Court ruling that the PSNI acting on behalf of Durham Police had no legal right to the m Journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey at Castlereagh Police Station in east Belfast after having all the materials and computers returned to them after a High Court ruling that the PSNI acting on behalf of Durham Police had no legal right to the materials. Picture by Alan Lewis/Photopress

“Never apologise and never explain - it’s a sign of weakness.” So said John Wayne in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

Much as I love Wayne (The Searchers is one of the best films ever made), the advice his character gives is terrible.

What was needed last week after the case against two investigative journalists was dropped was an unambiguous apology.

Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney spent 10 months mired in a case about the suspected theft of files from the Police Ombudsman’s Office.

Valuable police and court time and £320,000 of public money was spent chasing two men who had investigated persistent claims of collusion in the murders of six Catholic men in Loughinisland in June 1994.

Their groundbreaking documentary No Stone Unturned named those it said were suspects.

The film, which is as powerful and compelling a piece of work as I have ever seen about the Troubles, should have given new hope to the Loughinisland families who are still waiting for their loved ones’ killers to be brought to justice.

The names of Barney Green (87), Adrian Rogan (34), Malcolm Jenkinson (53), Daniel McCreanor (59), Patrick O’Hare (35) and Eamon Byrne (39), who were shot dead by UVF gunmen in the Heights Bar in Loughinisland in June 1994 while customers were watching the Republic of Ireland play Italy in the World Cup, should never be forgotten.

The families’ grief and upset has been overshadowed by a police investigation which seemed like an utterly pointless charade from the very beginning.

The high-profile raids on Mr McCaffrey and Mr Birney’s homes and office and the length of time they were held in custody following their arrests were heavy-handed even by Northern Ireland standards.

It seemed, not so much as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but using a wrecking ball to demolish a neighbour’s garden shed because you think they have stolen your secateurs.

Police confirmed last week that the case against Mr McCaffrey and Mr Birney had been dropped following a court ruling that the search warrants issued against the two journalists had been “inappropriate".

It’s right that PSNI chief constable George Hamilton said he would back an independent inquiry into how the PSNI and Durham Police handled the arrests and investigation.

But it was the response from Durham police chief Mike Barton which was truly remarkable.

At a meeting of the Policing Board, Mr Barton was asked by Sinn Fein’s Gerry Kelly if he would apologise to the journalists. He did apologise for any distress caused to the Loughinisland families. However, he declined to apologise to Mr McCaffrey or Mr Birney.

Mr Birney’s solicitor Niall Murphy certainly felt that an apology was appropriate - particularly to the families but also to the two journalists.

To be fair to Mr Barton, an apology can often be seen, in large organisations at least, as an admission of guilt.

Part of the problem is that the word apology is ambiguous. It can mean an expression of genuine remorse and repentance but it can also be a way of the speaker trying to defend their behaviour.

We’re all familiar with the apology-which-isn’t in which the speaker says they are “sorry you feel that way” - effectively putting the onus back on the person or people who have been wronged.

If Mr Barton, as a relative outsider, had apologised it may not have cost him much.

If a senior police officer, who has lived and worked in the north for decades, made an apology for the failings of an investigation he has been involved in that would have cost him or her something.

The writer G.K. Chesterton felt that people who had been wronged don’t want compensation. They want healing because they have been hurt.

But in a place where so many families have been hurt, how can the healing game begin?

There’s no doubt that both the journalists and the Loughinisland families have been upset by a police investigation which should never have happened.

Apologies are usually welcome but what seems more important in a case like this is a rejection of the decision which led to the arrests and an understanding that some form of restitution is needed.

For the families, and the journalists who fought to investigate the truth behind the killings, only the arrest and conviction of those responsible for murdering six men on a summer evening 25 years ago will ease the hurt.