Only a public inquiry will “expose to the light” the full truth about state involvement in the loyalist murder of GAA official Sean Brown, the High Court has heard.
Counsel for the victim’s widow urged a judge to order the UK government to establish a statutory investigation into allegations that the killers were shielded.
Desmond Fahy KC claimed Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn has unlawfully refused Bridie Brown’s request for such an inquiry.
He said: “The truth remains in the dark when it should properly be exposed to the light.”
Mr Brown (61) was abducted by a Loyalist Volunteer Force gang as he locked the gates at Bellaghy Wolfe Tones GAA Club on May 12 1997.
The father of six was bundled into the boot of his car, taken to Randalstown, Co Antrim and shot dead.
No-one has ever been convicted of his murder.
Earlier this year it emerged at an inquest that state agents were among more than 25 people linked by intelligence to the killing.
At that stage the coroner, Mr Justice Kinney, halted proceedings due to the extent of confidential material excluded or withheld on national security grounds.
He wrote to the previous Conservative government requesting the establishment of a public inquiry.
But in September Mr Benn confirmed that those calls had been rejected.
He instead recommended that the family should engage with the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), a new body set up under the controversial Legacy Act.
Even though the Labour Government has pledged to repeal the Act, it intends to retain the ICRIR.
According to Mrs Brown, the decision to deny her a public inquiry breaches Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The widow and members of her family were accompanied by supporters, political representatives and GAA President Jarlath Burns as the legal challenge got underway.
In an affidavit read out in court, Mrs Brown described going to the GAA club grounds with a torchlight to search in vain for her husband on the night he failed to return home.
She also recalled police officers attending the family’s house hours later, and her shock when one of them asked why her daughter was crying.
“Bridie Brown’s experience on that morning after her husband’s murder are emblematic of how she and the Brown family have been treated by all of the state parties in the intervening 27 years,” Mr Fahy submitted.
The barrister accepted that the chances of anyone ever being convicted for the killing are “vanishingly small”.
Amid references to fictional detective Sherlock Holmes’ method for eliminating any other possible solutions, he insisted there is currently no plausible or lawful alternative way in which the government can discharge its legal responsibilities.
The court heard revelations that state agents were connected to the killing came as a “shock of seismic proportions” to the family.
A NIO paper to the secretary of state which suggested a further police investigation would be inadequate to meet the Article 2 obligations was also cited during proceedings.
Mr Justice Humphreys was told how several reports have already been heavily critical of the RUC’s probe into the murder.
Former Police Ombudsman Nuala O’Loan found failings and inadequate efforts made to identify those responsible.
In 2022, the PSNI issued a public apology to Mrs Brown for deficiencies in the original probe as part of a settlement reached in a separate civil action over claims that the terrorists who carried out the assassination were protected.
Despite the collapse of the inquest, counsel described the legal challenge as another opportunity to obtain the correct account of what happened.
It was emphasised that the family wants the government to be compelled to convene a public inquiry.
Mr Fahy indicated that it was pointless for the secretary of state to keep “beating the drum” for his client to refer herself to the ICRIR.
“She has told him to his face in a meeting in August that the Brown family will never engage with the ICRIR,” the barrister confirmed.
Likening the situation to that which led to the public inquiry into alleged Russian state involvement in the 2006 murder of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko in London, he suggested equivalent central issues feature in the GAA man’s killing.
“That is the involvement of...loyalist paramilitaries who were also UK state agents, and the possibility they were shielded from investigation after the kidnap and murder,” he explained.
Mr Fahy also stressed it was a unique case which must be assessed on its own merits.
Tony McGleenan KC, for the secretary of state, responded that the challenge was seeking the highest possible form of relief - a mandatory order for the establishment of a public inquiry.
He argued that the case raised important constitutional questions about whether the court should intrude into the separate role played by the government.
“It is recognised that the secretary of state has a discretion in relation to public inquiries,” Mr McGleenan said.
“My learned friend is saying the court should take that discretion out of his hands and make the decision for him.
“We are crossing the line into executive decision-making, into consideration of a range of polycentric factors that the court is not as well placed as the executive to make decisions about.
“It’s a striking feature of this case that no party has cited any example where a court has made a mandatory order directing a minister or secretary of state to order a public inquiry.”
The case continues.