Outrage at IRA's offer to shoot McCartney's killers

Wednesday, 9 March 2005 12:00 AM

There has been widespread outrage at the IRA's offer to shoot the people responsible for the killing of Robert McCartney.

A statement released last night said that the IRA told the McCartney family "in clear terms that the IRA was prepared to shoot the people directly involved in the killing of Robert McCartney".

Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy said he was appalled by the statement, saying: "Any sort of punishment ought to come through the courts through due process of the law.

"There is no place for kangaroo courts of capital punishment in this country."

David Lidington, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, said: "It is for the courts to decide guilt and pass sentences. The Republican movement should place all the evidence from its 'internal investigation' in the hands of the police and the courts."

He added: "Northern Ireland needs the rule of law not the rule of the gang."

And Eddie McGrady, an MP for the moderate nationalist SDLP, said: "It is a gross affront to all standards of decency, justice and the law."

However, Sinn Fein's justice spokesman said the statement "enhances the process of trying to bring justice to the McCartneys".

Gerry Kelly told the BBC: "What [the IRA] is trying to do is encourage those who have information to come forward, which is what the McCartney family wanted."

The statement said that the family "made it clear that they did not want physical action taken against those involved" and said they wanted those responsible to account for their actions in court.

It said it had been given the names of three witnesses that the family feared were being intimidated and had given assurances that these three would not be harmed.

The statement concluded: "The only interest the IRA has in this case is to see truth and justice achieved."

McCartney, a father-of-two, was stabbed to death in a Belfast pub on January 30. His family blames the IRA for the death as well as the intimidation of potential witnesses and the destruction of evidence.

Tags: