Official title: Background to this Review
In brief
- The review was document-based, with full access to the Stevens archives, but had no power to compel witnesses.
- The Finucane family declined to meet the review and continued to seek a public inquiry.
- Ciphers (A, G, L, R, T) are used for many individuals; senior officials are generally named.
What this chapter covers
Chapter 1 explains how the review was set up and how it went about its work. It covers the government's terms of reference, how de Silva interpreted them, his methods, the earlier investigations he drew on, the 2003 European Court of Human Rights judgment in Finucane v United Kingdom, and the legal duty to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention.
How the review worked
The review was mainly document-based. De Silva had access to the full archive of the three Stevens investigations, which began in September 1989, including their witness statements and interview transcripts. He also interviewed a number of people, among them Lord Stevens, former Army and RUC Special Branch officers and a Security Service officer, and invited written submissions from organisations including the Ministry of Defence, the PSNI and the Security Service.
He did not seek evidence from loyalist paramilitaries, whom he judged unwilling to take part in truth recovery. The Finucane family declined to meet the review because they were pursuing a public inquiry. The chapter also records gaps in the evidence: several witnesses, including Brian Nelson and William Stobie, had died, and some documents had been destroyed.
Standards and limits
De Silva stresses that the report is a public account, not a finding of civil or criminal liability, and that the review could not award compensation. It was not bound by the rules of evidence and could consider intelligence material that a court could not. Rather than apply one standard of proof throughout, he says he indicates in each place how firmly he holds a conclusion.
Names and ciphers
A long section explains how people are identified. Senior state figures are generally named. Lower-ranking personnel are described by role. Living people alleged to have paramilitary links are usually given ciphers, with letters indicating the category: A for Army, G for government, L for loyalists, R for RUC and T for targeted persons. The chapter also explains that the report uses "UDA" throughout, treating the "UFF" label used to claim attacks as a cover name for the same organisation.
Why it matters
Anyone weighing the report's conclusions needs this chapter. It explains both what de Silva could see that earlier investigators could not, and what he could not do, which is central to the later argument, accepted by the Supreme Court in 2019, that the review was not a substitute for an Article 2-compliant inquiry.