The British Government has decided not to order an immediate public inquiry into north Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane's murder.
Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and Police Ombudsman investigations into the 1989 loyalist paramilitary shooting are to go ahead.
Mr Finucane, a 39-year-old solicitor who represented republican and loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles, was shot dead in his family home in north Belfast in February 1989 by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) in an attack found to have involved collusion with the state.
Mr Finucane’s widow Geraldine and the couple’s three children have been campaigning for decades for a public inquiry to establish the extent of security force involvement.
In February last year, the Supreme Court ruled that investigations into the fatal shooting of the solicitor have not been effective and fell short of international human rights standards.
Secretary of State Brandon Lewis informed the Finucane family of his intention on a virtual call this afternoon and in a statment to the Commons afterwards said there would not be a public inquiry "at this time".
Pat Finucane's son John said the failure of the British Government to establish a public inquiry into his death was "insulting".
Speaking in the Commons Brandon Lewis said: "In February 2019 the Supreme Court made a declaration that the State had not discharged its obligation to conduct an Article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane.
"That judgment specifically set out that it is for the State to decide what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement.
"It did not order a public inquiry but, in considering all the options open to me to meet the State's obligations under Article 2, I have considered whether a public inquiry would be the most appropriate step to address the specific findings of the courts at this time.
"I have this afternoon spoken to the Finucane family, I advised them of my decision not to establish a public inquiry at this time.
"Our public statement published this afternoon sets out the considered rationale for this decision."
Brandon Lewis outlined the rationale for the decision.
He told MPs: "In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court identified a number of issues with previous investigations in this case.
"Firstly, there was no identification of the officers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), security service and secret intelligence service who failed to warn Patrick Finucane of known threats to his life in 1981 and 1985, together with the circumstances in which these failures occurred.
"Secondly, there was no identification of the RUC officers, who as Desmond de Silva said, probably did propose Mr Finucane as a target for loyalist terrorists in December 1988.
"And thirdly, there was no identification of the police source who provided intelligence about Patrick Finucane to Ken Barrett."
Mr Lewis added that the Supreme Court "did not render the previous reviews and investigations" as "null and void".
Brandon Lewis said he is releasing more information about the case into the public domain.
Mr Lewis said: "As (Owen Paterson) stated in 2011, accepting that collusion occurred is not sufficient in itself.
"The government recognises the need to ensure sufficient levels of public scrutiny of criminal investigations and their results.
"And I am today publishing further information that was considered by the independent council in their review since the Supreme Court judgment - some of which has previously been released into the public domain.
"This includes information pertaining to a Police Service of Northern Ireland review conducted in 2015."
Brandon Lewis told MPs he is "not taking the possibility of a public inquiry off the table at this stage", adding the PSNI and police ombudsman processes must move forward without the risk of prejudicing any emerging conclusions from their work.
The Northern Ireland Secretary explained how a number of issues were referred to the Police Ombudsman in 2016, noting: "In addition, the legacy investigation branch of the PSNI informed my department on November 2 2020 that Patrick Finucane's case is shortly due to undergo a process of review in accordance with the priorities set out in their case sequencing model.
"The chief constable confirmed this is expected to begin early in the new year. To be clear, this is a purely operational police matter. The UK Government, rightly, has no role whatsoever in determining how or when the police deal with their outstanding legacy caseload.
"However, the fact a decision on a police review is due shortly is an important development and was a factor in determining the next steps in this case. Critically, a review would consider whether further investigative steps could be taken in this case and whether the PSNI should do so."
Mr Lewis added any review would be conducted independently of the PSNI.
He also said: "I want to be clear, I'm not taking the possibility of a public inquiry off the table at this stage - it is important we allow the PSNI and police ombudsman processes to move forward and that we avoid the risk of prejudicing any emerging conclusions from their work."
PSNI Chief Constable Simon Byrne said the murder of Pat Finucane "was a truly horrendous crime" and he echoed the apology given to the Finucane family by his predecessor, Matt Baggott, in 2012.
He said it was the view of the PSNI that "there are currently no new lines of inquiry".
"We now need to decide if a further review is merited given all the previous investigations into this case," he added.
The chief constable continued: "Once we have determined that, we will inform the Finucane family. If we determine that a review should take place, we will then have to decide if we are best placed to carry out that review. As it stands it is unlikely that we would enjoy a perception of independence in this case, given the accepted position of State involvement in this matter. Therefore, it is highly likely that any review would need to be conducted independently.
"A review itself is not an investigation. Any decision to investigate would only be made following the review process. Again, it is likely that any new investigation would need to be independently led. We would also need to be satisfied that given the extensive work of Lord Stevens, Judge Cory and Sir Desmond de Silva, that a further investigation has a reasonable prospect of furthering this matter either by bringing more persons to justice or answering the unanswered questions of the Finucane family and their ongoing search for justice."
The Finucane family said the government's decision was "astonishing, arrogant and cruel".
They promised to continue campaigning until their questions were answered.
"There is only one reason to ask the local police to investigate a case that involves the British Army, the Security Services and former members of government: it means they will be untouchable.
"It is this internalisation of the issue to Northern Ireland that has allowed those responsible for the murder of Pat Finucane to do so with impunity.
"In failing to establish a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane, the British Government have not only set themselves against my family but also the Irish government, local, national and international political parties, political institutions, legal and human rights groups domestically and internationally."
Ahead of this afternoon's announcement by the secretary of state, the Republic's Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney said there was unanimity among parties in the Republic that the case would be in “many ways an indication as to whether the British Government is fully committed to truth and reconciliation in the context of the legacy of the past”.
“If we are to move forward together on this island – both governments, all political parties and indeed most importantly victims and their families – well then we need to see full commitment by both governments to establishing the truth,” he added.
He told BBC Radio Ulster: “I think the Pat Finucane case today is an opportunity to say to communities that the legacy process is about establishing the full truth, even if that involves a dark and difficult period in history that needs to be exposed.”