Keir Starmer can add IRA victims to list of people he’s betrayed (Image: PA Wire)
The Government’s decision to allow Gerry Adams and others to claim compensation for wrongful detention during the Troubles is a shocking betrayal of victims across the UK. It disregards decades of suffering inflicted by terrorists and overturns a well-established legal principle that safeguarded government decision-making during a time of crisis. Successive governments have repeatedly failed victims, but this latest move crosses a new line by prioritising technical legalities over moral responsibility.
Parliament had acted to close this loophole, yet the Government now seems determined to reopen it, causing further pain to those who have already suffered too much.
The Government decision disregards the immense suffering caused by terrorist violence and undermines decades of efforts to heal the wounds inflicted during that dark period. Successive governments have repeatedly failed victims, and now, by overturning long-standing legal principles, they risk retraumatising those who have already endured unimaginable pain. This issue goes beyond legal technicalities; it strikes at the heart of justice, fairness, and the moral responsibility owed to victims of terror.
Victims in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom suffered immensely during the euphemistically termed Troubles. These decades of violence and terror inflicted deep wounds on communities, families, and individuals. With the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, many hoped that victims’ voices would finally be heard, their suffering acknowledged, and their needs addressed. However, successive Governments, regardless of party affiliation, have either neglected victims or, worse, retraumatised them through misguided policies and actions.
The latest affront to victims is to allow Gerry Adams, and by extension others, to claim compensation for the wrongful exercise of interim custody orders in the early 1970s. This decision is deeply distressing to victims and to many right-thinking people across the UK. Adams, a prominent figure in the Troubles, represents for many the very face of the terror and trauma they endured. The idea that he might now receive compensation—essentially financial reward—for a legal technicality is abhorrent.
The legal basis for this decision stems from a controversial Supreme Court ruling that overturned the established Carltona principle. This principle allowed powers conferred on a secretary of state to be exercised by others, such as a Minister of State, ensuring the efficient functioning of government. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of R v Adams disrupted this long-standing precedent and opened the door for claims of wrongful imprisonment by individuals like Adams.
This ruling has been heavily criticised by senior legal figures and experts. The think tank Policy Exchange’s detailed paper, “Misjudging Parliament’s Reversal of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in R v Adams,” dissects the flaws in the court’s reasoning. It highlights the detrimental impact of the judgment on government functioning and the dangerous precedent it sets. The paper also underscores that the court’s decision effectively disregarded the intentions and practical realities of governance during a time of extraordinary crisis in Northern Ireland.
Recognising the significance of this issue, Parliament acted decisively to address it through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act of 2023.
While the Act was controversial—with many criticising elements related to amnesty provisions and the structure of truth recovery mechanisms—sections 46 and 47, which reinstated the Carltona principle, received broad cross-party support. These sections were seen as essential to preventing claims like Adams’ from succeeding and preserving the integrity of government decision-making during the Troubles. This was challenged in the Northern Ireland High court which said the provisions unanimously agreed by Parliament were not compatible with Human Rights legislation. Government could and should have resisted this determination but instead have decided to ignore the will of parliament.
The Labour Party’s current position on the Act is concerning. In their election manifesto, they committed to repealing the Legacy and Reconciliation Act. However, their approach to repeal has been selective. They plan to retain provisions establishing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery while removing sections 46 and 47. This selective approach raises serious questions. If Labour can keep the clauses related to reconciliation, why can they not also retain the widely supported provisions reinstating the Carltona principle? Their failure to do so is not only inconsistent but also deeply troubling.
What is particularly alarming is the lack of any substantial justification from Labour for this decision. Their argument essentially boils down to deferring to the court’s ruling. Yet, in a parliamentary democracy, it is Parliament’s role to legislate and make decisions on matters of public policy. Courts interpret the law, but it is Parliament that sets the law. The sovereignty of Parliament is a cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional framework. In this case, the will of Parliament—as expressed through the passing of sections 46 and 47—should take precedence, especially given the profound public interest at stake.
The implications of Labour’s stance are far-reaching. By failing to uphold sections 46 and 47, they risk undermining public confidence in government processes and, more importantly, they risk causing further harm to victims. Many victims of the Troubles have already endured unimaginable pain and loss. They have seen perpetrators walk free, and they have watched as their suffering has been sidelined in the pursuit of political agreements and reconciliatory gestures. The idea that someone like Gerry Adams could now receive compensation adds insult to injury. It sends a message that their suffering is secondary to legal technicalities and political expediency.
Like many more eminent noble Lords who have expressed their opposition to the Government’s approach, I too will continue to challenge this move. The work of Policy Exchange and other critical voices must be amplified. The Government’s attempt to change the law through a remedial order in Parliament must be scrutinised and resisted. This is not just about technical legal principles; it is about recognising the hurt and pain that victims have already endured and preventing further harm.
There is still time for the Government and the Opposition to reconsider their positions. They must ask themselves: what message are we sending to victims? Are we prioritising justice, fairness, and compassion, or are we letting legal formalities and political calculations dictate our actions? The answer should be clear. The Government must think again. They must prioritise victims, uphold the integrity of parliamentary sovereignty, and prevent the retraumatisation of those who have already suffered so much at the hands of terrorists.
In the end, this is about more than legal doctrines and legislative provisions. It is about people. It is about communities that have been torn apart by violence and are still trying to heal. It is about acknowledging their suffering and ensuring that the actions of Government do not exacerbate their pain. The decision to allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation is a step in the wrong direction. It is a step that must be challenged and reversed. For the sake of victims, for the sake of justice, and for the sake of our collective conscience, Parliament must stand firm.