27/02/2014 The View

Tonight, comfort letter, ultimatums and on the runs, David Cameron calls

in a running to lead a review into the issue which could have brought

down Stormont the First Minister says he's satisfied. The First

Minister and the Secretary of State have been prompt. They have dealt

with the issue seriously and in a matter satisfactory to me. Yes, I do

not intend to resign on the basis that if you get what you want, why

would you want to resign? Is that satisfaction shared by other

politicians? We hear from representatives at the Assembly and

Westminster. Plus the man responsible for prosecutions here

gives his verdicts on prosecuting the past. So it is a matter of

concern to me that there are a large number of cases out there in respect

of which there may not have been complete investigations. And in the

commentary box with their thoughts on it all and you can join on

Twitter. So, the crisis appears to be over

for now at least. Peter Robinson has withdrawn his threat to be First

Minister, appeased by David Cameron, who agreed to call in a judge to

look at the row. A frenzied two days of political accusations, denials,

claims of secret deals and secret amnesties began, with the collapse

of the Hyde Park bombing case. That was on Tuesday. Events moved at a

heady pace. I am not prepared to be the head of a Government kept in the

dark in this way. I want full disclosure. I want the people of

Northern Ireland to know what has gone on. With the brief to the

Policing Board, but if you read the report in the past, it is referred

to there. The first I knew anything about it was after the court

decision last Friday. Despite what I read out there the DUP did not know

and it says, the OTRs were being dealt with. And to set that... And

where does it say that there was an administrative scheme to deal with

the issue? Where does it say? No, it doesn't! It is becoming increasingly

clear to people that we were not the only people who knew about this. I

can announce we'll appoint an independent judge to produce a full

public account of the administration of this scheme to determine whether

any other letters were sent in error. A quick reminder of how we

got where we are. Joining many eare Geoffry Donaldson. Of Alex Maskey,

Jim Allister and the SDLP's Mark Durkan.

This judge-led examination is a far cry from what Peter Robinson was

demanding yesterday, isn't it? He asked for a judge-led inquiry into

what happened. That is what the Prime Minister announced this

afternoon. We need full disclosure. We want to know the names to whom

these letters were issued. We want to know why made the decisions and

on what basis were they issued. These are critical matters. As Peter

said, in your interview, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to

know these things. They will get to know because we'll have a judge who

will examine all this and bring it into the public dough main. That is

what we wanted to see happening. It is not a judicial inquiry. It cannot

compel witnesses to appear. It will not be altered by the inquiry. Don't

twist words, Mark. It is a judge-led inquiry. That is

what he has got today - a judge-led inquiry into this situation. You may

be happy with the situation in Northern Ireland where deals are

done behind people's backs. I am t not I am not happy we had a

Government who did a deal with Sinn Fein, who issued letters without

telling anyone, including the Justice Minister. Those things

should be brought into the public domain. That is what a judge-led

inquiry will do. It is the same as a full judicial inquiry. With respect,

Mark, you are the only person talking about that. Peter Robinson

did not ask for a judicial inquiry. His full words were, a full,

judicial inquiry. He asked for a judge-led inquiry into this

situation. That is what we've got. . Here are the words, in case you are

in any doubt - a full judicial inquiry into all these matters. That

is what we're getting. The judge is a member of the judiciary, that is a

judicial inquiry. He has the power, as the Prime Minister said, and if

you read the terms of reference for this inquiry, it is very clear. He

can compel officials. He has access to all Government documents and in

fact, he can consider any... Yes he can compel officials to present

themselves. He cannot compel anyone. I am sorry, Mark, this is a judicial

inquiry. The judge has the power to call officials. He has the power to

examine documents. The Prime Minister said he would have full

access to Government papers on. This this is not the only show in town.

The Northern Ireland affairs committee, which has the power to

compel ministers to come to Parliament will also conduct an

inquiry. The Justice Committee here in Northern Ireland, in the

Assembly, is also looking at the option of having an inquiry in the

Assembly here as well. They might do that. Then again, they might not do

that. We can have the judge-led inquiry. We'll have a parliamentary

inquiry, which has the power to compel officials and ministers to

appear before the committee. So, with all due respect, our objective

was to bring this out into the open, so the people of Northern Ireland

could see exactly what was happening, what was going on. With

all due respect, no-one has brought anything else, or come forward...

Jim Allister, apparently I am the only person concerned about this. I

don't think you are terribly happy that it is what Peter Robinson asked

it to be? It is nothing like Peter Robinson asked it. Geoffry is the

man sent out the spin. He was sent out to spin the Maze when they

wanted the Maze. Tonight, we are looking at one of --

another U-turn. Only 24 hours ago, he was playing tough and saying he

needed a full judicial inquiry into all these matters, so that we can

see who knew, when they knew, what they knew - these are vital question

toss be asked and answer -- questions to be asked and answered.

I want to know who the 170 people are. He's got an administrative

review, led by a judge. It is not a public inquiry. There'll be no

compellable witnesses. There will be no witness on oath. There'll be no

representation for victims, which you would have in a proper public

inquiry. Which is the most concerning thing. There'll be a

paper exercise, where the judge will look over the papers N the words of

the Prime Minister, to satisfy himself there's no other mistakes...

I wasn't the man... I was not the man who said if I don't get a full

inquiry, if I don't get the resigning of these letters then I

resign. Hang on!

As for the rescinding of the letters he got nothing. Tonight, he's trying

to hide behind a fig leaf. It's the same that's in the very letters. Go

to paragraph 123 of the judgment in the Downy case. The very thing that

Robinson is claiming tonight as a victory was already in the on the

run letters - the very same language. He got nothing. He took

people to the top of the hill and he's clambered back down, clutching

the leafs he has. It's easy for you to criticise the DUP! You knew

nothing about it either... Did you not read the police board minutes?

Did you not read the memoirs? I was not on the police board. I have read

the memoirs. Let's be very, very clear I was the First Minister who

came out and said, my job is not worth doing unless I can deliver on

these issues. He's not going to deliver on these issues. He has once

again, sadly, even betrayed the victims. Those who are concerned

about what has happened to those that may have murdered their loved

ones they are not going to get a chance in a public inquiry to

explore that. They will not even hear the names of those. I will

bring in the other guests. You have said, a phrase used by Jim Allister,

you have said the announcement from David Cameron is a fig leaf for the

DUP. What I am worried about is all the

parties working together, to solve the problems which this particular

issue highlights and that is the failure of the parties and of the

Governments to deal with all of the issues of the past. When all the

parties go out and say, let's deal with the victims, none of the

parties, including my own, we don't represent all the victims. We may

represent some. We do not all. Do we get a way forward which addresses

the vast majority of victims - an opportunity to go down the judicial

route or an information... You don't think it is now dead in the water?

There have been people who have been opposed to dealing this matter for

years. There are three parties who have rejected it. For me, it is more

like a get out pass. The Republican version was to deal

with it in secret and not deal with anybody else - that is what Sinn

Fein did. It is a contrived problem because all of the parties were

aware that as it was being addressed, it was 2001 and as late

as 2009 in the report, page 121, it refers very explicitly in that

review - the case has been raised by Foster.

They didn't know about the letters. It doesn't matter if you know about

a precise letter. That is the point. Let me say to you, you are saying

that and others are making a point. I am not saying it. These gentlemen

are saying it. I have just agreed with you that

others are saying it is a matter of concern to them. What I am saying to

you, it is no surprise that any of the parties that this matter was of

interest. And in the case, which Arlene Foster review referred to.

The defence for the killing was the fact that he, unlike others didn't

get a letter or a pardon. That was a highly-publicised case. The unionist

party politicians were in the court listening to all of that. It was a

highly-publicised case. People knew it was going on. Did you know it was

going on? No. I didn't know it was going on in these terms. Let's be

clear, there were things the parties decided they didn't need to know.

And things the DUP decided they didn't need to know. Whenever the

controversial bill was brought forward, the thrust was not the stop

the bill which is what the SDPL were trying to do, it was to make sure

the blame hung around David Trimble's neck. Of course the

British Government went along with him saying it went back... The

record will show if anybody... The record shows we opposed the bill. I

did not t interrupt you. We opposed the bill at every turn and it was

not the SDLP... Let him make his point. I want to be very clear -

Peter Robinson, who sit on that committee, made it clear to me,

personally, that he thought I was overdoing it in opposing the bill,

that he thought I was foolish in believing I could stop the bill,

that it was a done deal. They were making it clear it was done by David

Trimble. You only have to read the words that every time he spoke, it

was put on... Peter and grefry, they made it clear... It was never made a

deal-breaker by the DUP. And Jim, you were in the DUP at that stage.

You knew what was in that bill. The bill was public. It was not made a

deal-breaker. How the First Minister was there, was going to be a

deal-breaker. The review was a deal-breaker. This scheme to give a

whiched-open amnesty, not just this to on the runs - that was never a

deal breaker, so long as David Trimble could take the blame. Let's

be clear with that... ALL SPEAK AT

Finish the sentence. We never went against individual families. We were

looking to deal with the past on a number of levels. Sinn Fein did not

want to address some other families. Let's be very clear. These letters

were always outrageous. Yesterday, today. Why? Because they subvert the

due process of the law. They subvert the political process. None of that

has changed. The very thing that Mr Robinson said would be a resigning

matter, that is still the position tonight. We are out of time, folks.

ALL TALK OVER EACH OTHER. The debate will continue. Thank you

all very much for joining us tonight. One man in an unusual

position is the director of public prosecutions, appointed in November

2011. Beforehand, as prominent defence solicitor, he represented

clients who would have been categorised as on the runs. I asked

him for his reaction to David Cameron's announcement of an enquiry

into the row. There is a senior judicial figure

heading this enquiry. It will have integrity. I certainly will give my

cooperation to it, as will the GPS. -- PPS. It should clear up some

confusion and concern. You are confident it will get to the

answers? It most certainly will. You acted as a solicitor for some on the

runs, before you were appointed as director of public and is. Did you

know about the existence of these letters? -- public prosecutions.

Again, this whole issue is going to be examined in detail by a judicial

figure for the purposes of a review to be published, I understand, in

May. I should keep whatever I have to say about all of that to the

context of that review. Is it not a fair assumption that you must have

known about it? In the Jan Downey ruling your quoted about having

asked about the status of your clients. Your position now is

different, I am just asking, did you know at that time? The first tranche

of letters were given out in 2002. When you were asking in 2007, did

you know about the existence of the letters? I had a degree of

knowledge. But in the current context, a judicial review announced

by the Prime Minister, I should keep what I have to say within the

context of that review. Were you surprised that your sister

organisation, the CPS, will not appeal the ruling in the Downey

case? I have read it, a well reasoned ruling, and I can

understand the decision of the CPS not to seek a review. Lots of people

have not read it as closely as you have, but they are surprised. And

very frustrated and annoyed. I can understand that, but it is a legal

decision taken by the Attorney General and the director public

prosecutions. Does having represented on the runs in the past

mean there are certain decisions you cannot play a part in in your

current role? The number of cases were down to a trickle by the time I

got to the office, the vast number well dealt with many years ago. In

tombs of the sheer volume of casework in which my office is

involved, it is a tiny number. -- in terms. But there would have been a

number that crossed your desk that you could not be involved in because

of the disengagement? A very small number. There was only

one case of which I became aware, that was being considered, in

respect that I might have had a conflict of interest. As soon as I

became aware I made it known and had no further dealings. In fact I had

no dealings with it at all, except being aware of it was in the office.

That was a matter of months ago. It was mentioned that there was an on

the run case being looked at, the name was mentioned, as soon as I

heard, I said, you may tell me nothing about that case. I actually

know nothing about it. The deputy director deals with it. What is your

view on the Harris proposals providing limited immunity for those

giving information and killings? I have to say I thought they were

positive, in that they set out clearly an investigative procedure

and constitution, which would be sharply focussed, which would have a

period of time in which it would be operating and would have clear terms

of reference. As a prosecutor, that is a good thing. For me, that was a

positive suggestion. What do you think of the Attorney General's view

that it is time to drew a line under the past and stop investigating

killing killings that happened before the Good Friday agreement was

signed. That was a controversial decision he made. He is a senior law

officer. Do you agree with him? I have to say, I don't. He's entitled

to his point of view, as he expressed it. He made it clear that

he felt it made a positive contribution to the debate. I

wouldn't disagree with that. As a senior prosecution in the jurs

diction -- jurisdiction, it is my role in the criminal justice system

to deliver prosecutions where there is evidence. From my perspective

that would have removed a significant function, which I am not

entirely sure that society wanted to happen. Did Mr Larkin speak to you

about his proposals before he went public with them? No, he didn't. I

make no complaint about that. Were you surprised that such a

significant suggestion come from such a significant legal figure had

not been run by another significant legal figure? As you said, it would

cut across your whole am blet? I was not the only one surprised by the

remarks. You certainly weren't. You were not the only one who thought he

got it wrong, either. I disagree from my perspective as the chief

prosecutor of the jurisdiction. We've had four successful of

prosecutions in relation to, what might be described as historical

cases. We have two more we have commenced before the courts and

there may be others arising from the future investigations. So, I have to

say that while I would agree with the attorney that the prospects of

successful prosecutions are in those cases now slim. I have to say, they

are by no means out of the question. Yes, because that is the point he

madech he said part of his reasoning for that suggestion was the

likelihood of successful prosecutions recedes each year. You

say it does, but it is still worth continuing to try to pursue the

prosecutions when you can? Yes. It does recede each year. That is why

it is my view, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the

outstanding investigations which are proposed to take place, take place

sooner rather than later. OK, let's stay with the subject of

prosecutions and whether they are successful or not. If February, 2012

a judge freed 12 loyalists - very news worthy event when it happened.

Why do you feel the assisting offenders scheme, which was part of

that trial, has credibility after the enormously expensive collapse of

that case two years ago? These are difficult cases. They are difficult

cases because this society is amongst many in Europe and

particularly in the United States, has taken The View that however

distasteful it may be, there are occasions when significant leniency

should be afforded to those engaged in significant criminal conduct in

order to benefit from what they have to tell us, to secure convictions in

respect of others - for the greater good of society. That is - there's a

proo Is to be paid for that -- there's a price to be paid for that.

However, the Government has set up a clear stat tor Tory structure, in

which these decisions will be made and those cases brought forward,

which in my view allows for a significant degree of scrutiny of

those cases. Didn't that collapse, that expensive collapse, two years

ago, show the scheme is open to whole scale abuse? Each case has to

be taken on its own merits. Because it was a case and there was a

lengthy and detailed reasoned judgment from the judge, I was able

to - when I came into office the case was already under way. What I

was able to do after it ended in the way it did, was able to take the

judge's judgment, analyse it and learn lessons from it. So, any

future decisions which I will take in respect of these cases and there

are a couple outstanding l be take within the ben -- outstanding will

be take within the benefit of the judgment given in that case. I want

to talk to you finally about your own background and your own

involvement. You represented on-the-runs in the past. There may

be people who feel you are compromised. For example, your

involve with on-the-runs. Gerry Adams was a client at one stage. Is

that a concern you have, that you are not seen to be an honest broker

in the legal process? Do you know, I am glad you have given me the

opportunity to address that. I have to say, I think most people in our

society are mature enough to understand that the role of the

lawyer is to represent any particular client's interests and

it's a professional function. In my professional function, in

independent practise, in private practise, I would have represented

many people accused of a variety of crimes. I represented victims, I

have represented policemens accused of crimes. I have represented

British soldiers. I have represented members of unionist political

parties and nationalist political parties who have been accused of

crimes. I have represented victims in a variety of situations. I am a

professional. I will apply my professional ethics and my

professional skills, as I hope I have acquired over nearly 30 years

now, to any situation in which I am involved. That doesn't compromise me

whatsoever. Barra McGrory talking to me earlier today. Let's hear what

the commentators make of the days in politics. Alex, first let's pick up

on Barra McGrory's comments. He'sed a odds with the Attorney General --

he's at odds the Attorney General? One of whom wants to continue with

the judicial review. It is another way of dealing the past and the

attorney general who says he doesn't. If he says he doesn't

agree, it explains why there's so much difficulty at the political

level. The key guys they go to for advice are giving them contradictory

advice. I am surprised that two such figures are at such ends over such a

key issue. Having seen the conversation at the beginning of the

programme, you can understand why people can be - can be at poles

apart like that. Let's pick up on that. That was the main story

tonight and on all news outlets for 48 hours. Maybe we should not be

surprised to see such disagreement? Absolutely we shouldn't. I find

myself in an unnish position of agreeing pretty much with a lot of

what Jim Allister said tonight. I have written down a quote here about

Peter Robinson. He's resigning unless there is clarity around the

letters and clarification about what happened. I don't think we have any

clarity surrounding letter. We have been told the letters have remained

unchanged. As regards a public inquiry. What David Cameron

announced today, appointing a judge to looking at this scheme - I think

it is a far cry short of what DUP supporters would have expected. Do

you agree with that? It was like a party political episode of

EastEnders. It was so bad. There was no trust. Almost naked contempt for

each other. The reality is I can understand why Donaldson is angry.

It is like that deal, no deal game - where you open the box and there's 1

p. That is what Peter Robinson found today. He hasn't got what he wanted.

This judicial review doesn't do half the things that grefry claims it

does. -- everysay claims it -- Jeffrey says it does. Do you know

what I find disspir riting, you think of the effect on vik tims. It

must be -- victims. It must be soul-destroying. One saying if you

were in your 30s, get an education and get out of here because the

problems of the past are intractable. It is a negative note

to end the programme on. Thank you very much. That is it from The View

this week. Join me for a special edition of Stormont tomorrow

tomorrow night. For now, from all of us, goodbye.