RUC IMMUNE FROM EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION Widespread evidence of the use of brutality by the RUC leads to two conclusions:

(1) It was administrative practice. (2) It was sanctioned by successive governments. NO RUC MAN HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING A PRISONER SINCE 1968. Mr. Frank Maguire, MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, submitted a written question to the House of Commons (Written No. 84, 11/2/75): "To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many allegations of torture, brutality and degrading treatment accompanied by medical evidence have been made against the RUC in the period 1968 to 1975; how many have been formally investigated and in how many cases the allegations have been sustained in whole or in part." Mr. Merlyn Rees reply was: "Between 1 January, 1970 and 31 January, 1975, 1,345 complaints alleging assault were made against members of the RUC. All have been, or are being, investigated in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Police Act (NI), 1970. One thousand and six cases were referred to the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Prosecution was ordered in 31 cases; there were convictions in 8 cases. It is not possible without disproportionate effort to provide comparable statistics for 1968/69 or to say how many complaints in the subsequent period were accompanied by medical evidence." Two points of comment: (1) None of the eight convictions was for an assault on a person arrested under special or emergency powers. (2) Eight convictions means that in only .17% of 1% of the complaints made was a conviction secured. Immunity from effective prosecution illustrates a serious level of corruption in the RUC. Their machinery of complaints has proved to be useless. No complaint has been heard by a tribunal under Section 13(3) of the Police Act (NI), 1970. All have been referred to the Chief Constable. That machinery was never meant to punish the wrongdoers but to placate the public with an impression that something was being done about complaints. The RUC are by definition organised to catch and arrest criminals. That would include RUC criminals who use torture and brutality on their fellow citizens in a systematic way. These RUC criminals are of a base order. They have used a position of government trust and power to violate the law. Yet not only was the Police Authority for Northern Ireland negligent by their insufficient pursuit of complaints to impose discipline on the RUC, but RUC officers themselves, involved in investigating complaints, and their superior officers, have failed to find and convict the guilty men. One can only assume that their conclusion is that "there are no guilty members of the RUC" in their eyes. Isnt the logical conclusion rather that brutality and torture were inflicted by RUC men as a result of administrative practice, carefully plotted, carried out, and protected by immunity stratagems?