In December 1997 Seamus Dillon was killed by the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) in an attack on the Glengannon Hotel. Mr Dillon was working as a doorman when he noticed suspicious activity in the carpark. He realised that gunmen were about to open fire into the disco and used his final moments to bar the door, saving the lives of those inside the building.
For years, the attack was assumed to be vengeance for LVF leader Billy Wright’s death in Long Kesh, just hours before the attack on the Glengannon. However, the inquest into Seamus Dillon’s death has revealed that the attack was pre-planned and that State forces had prior knowledge.
Public Interest Immunity (PII) is invoked when the State believes that publicising evidence could jeopardise national security. The State parties’ zealous use of PII has created undue delays and jeopardised the inquest’s progress. Such delays are cause for concern, especially when there are allegations of collusion. In this case, however, the MoD’s delays have much higher stakes with the Legacy Act’s looming May 1st deadline.
In Friday’s hearing, the motive for these delays became clear. The documents they were so reluctant to provide – and have redacted so heavily that they are ‘of no use’ to the Dillon family’s lawyers – are damning. With Tina Dillon, Seamus’s widow, in the gallery of the courtroom, her lawyer declared, ‘On behalf of Mrs Dillon I do not accept any narrative other than state agents and informers played a central role in this murder.’
Prior Knowledge
Even in their heavily redacted form, the PSNI papers suggest that plans for an attack were in place before Billy Wright’s death. Previous witnesses established that other hotels in the area received warnings of a possible attack, yet no warning was given to the Glengannon Hotel. This is particularly shocking in the wake of Friday’s revelation that available intelligence indicated that an ‘attack of this type at this location was imminent.’ Even more alarming, the intelligence said that ‘the shooting at the Glengannon Hotel had been planned for some time before Billy Wright’s death… it was going to be carried out sometime even if Wright had not been murdered.’
In light of this new information, the Dillon family ask:
- Who had possession of the prior knowledge?
- To whom was that prior knowledge provided?
- What action was taken in relation to the prior knowledge?
Investigative and Prosecutorial Failings
It has been claimed that the weapon was never recovered. However, the PSNI papers clearly state that the weapon was indeed recovered at the home of a Miss Gibson. The true identity of Miss Gibson is not currently known publicly, but it is confirmed that she was charged with possession of the weapon that killed Seamus Dillon. There are also indications that Miss Gibson admitted to possessing the weapon in her home prior to Seamus Dillon’s murder. In what seems to be a cruelly flippant reference to collusion, Miss Gibson allegedly stated that Seamus Dillon was ‘shot for free.’ The PSNI recently removed some redactions, which revealed that a group of individuals ‘were involved in transporting [the murder] weapon to Dungannon.’
The Dillon family seeks clarification on the following issues related to the identification, investigation, and (non)prosecution of Miss Gibson and the other suspects:
- The decision not to charge Miss Gibson with conspiracy to murder; specifically, the decision-making process, individuals involved in the process; and the rationale.
- The failure to charge the individuals who transported the gun; specifically, material relating to the interview, charging, or decision to prosecute any of these individuals for conspiracy to murder.
- The redaction of the individuals involved in transporting the murder weapon to Dungannon; specifically, if the redactions are at all related to State agents’ involvement in Seamus Dillon’s murder.
Collusion
Materials related to the Rosemary Nelson inquiry have also been included. Although they do not seem to refer directly to Seamus Dillon’s murder, the Dillon family requests that the issue be clarified, especially around four distinct issues:
- A reference to ‘the Gough [Barracks] CID boy who was taken off interviews because he got too friendly with [suspects]’;
- A statement that the UDR and RIR were ‘where we got all our information from’
- Allegations that an MoD contact provided suspected Republicans’ names, addresses, car plates, and other identifying information; and
- A statement that the ‘UDR had the names of Provos. They used to hand them over to us.’
The Dillon family is ‘dismayed’ at the ‘total absence’ of information about State agents/informers in the disclosures. There is also evidence that the British Army was in the vicinity on the night of the attack, but no such material has been supplied by the MoD. In fact, the MoD has failed to supply any of its own sensitive material. Instead, the MoD documents are ‘an echo and a copy’ of PSNI materials.
MI-5 has supplied redacted documents, as well. However, the documents are redacted so heavily that lawyers for the Dillon family have requested the redactions be scrutinised. Additionally, a document naming members of the LVF Army Council redacts all names but one: Stuart Kirk.
With the negligible disclosures related to collusion, the Dillon family requests the following:
- All possible material relating to collusion between RUC/UDR officers and those who killed Seamus Dillon;
- An explanation for MI5’s redactions of all but Stuart Kirk’s name in the aforementioned document. Specifically, the Dillon family seeks an explanation of why those individuals raise PII concerns while Stuart Kirk does not. Furthermore, they request any information regarding the redacted individuals’ connection with State agencies and possible status as State informers; and
- Clarification about Miss Gibson’s suspected reference to collusion in her statement about shooting Seamus Dillon ‘for free’.
The open portion of the hearing then concluded, with select individuals entering closed proceedings to discuss matters that cannot be made public. The inquest is expected to resume in early April.
