An investigation into one of Northern Ireland's most gruesome killings is to be fast-tracked, the High Court in Belfast has heard.
A judge was told the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland would speed up the inquiry into the sectarian torture and murder of Catholic man Patrick Benstead more than 40 years ago.
The news emerged in an ongoing legal challenge over funding cuts to the independent watchdog which it had been feared could delay inquiries by decades. Mr Benstead’s brother Colm is seeking to subject Minister for Justice David Ford to judicial review over the decision to reduce resources.
The 32-year-old victim, from the Short Strand area of east Belfast, was abducted in December 1972 and taken to a loyalist drinking den where he was beaten and then shot. His murder was among 22 carried out by a notorious UDA gang, eight of which became known as the Romper Room killings.
Amid suspicions that loyalists were in collusion with a military unit and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Benstead family lodged a complaint with the ombudsman in 2006.
Last autumn the current ombudsman, Dr Michael Maguire, revealed his budget had been reduced by about £750,000. Colm Benstead’s lawyers claimed it would deny the right to a prompt investigation to establish whether his brother’s killing was preventable, linked to other murders or involved any collusion. At a previous hearing it was claimed there could be a 20-year delay in fully examining the complaint.
The Minister’s legal representatives insist the Stormont House political deal agreed last December will deal with any backlog and reverse funding cuts. It is envisaged that a new historical investigations unit (HIU) taking over responsibility for examining legacy cases will be operating by next summer. A budget of £150 million is also to be made available over a five-year period.
But in court today Mr Benstead’s lawyer disclosed the potentially significant development on the time frame for his case. Steven McQuitty said: “I have just been told by counsel for the police ombudman that Mr Benstead’s claim is going to be in some way fast-tracked within the ombudsman’s office.”
Confirming the situation, David Scoffield QC, representing the watchdog, apologised to the family for being informed during court proceedings.
“That’s not the way the ombudsman prefers to provide news about the conduct of the case. What my friend called fast-tracking has only come to light in the last number of days as the Benstead [case] has been linked with a number of other cases which had a higher priority,” he said.
Mr Scoffield was unable to go into more detail, but said more information would be given to the family within the next week or so. On that basis the judge agreed to adjourn the challenge.
Outside court Mr Benstead said he accepted the ombudsman’s apology about how he learned of the new prioritisation. But he insisted funding uncertainties could still see his brother’s case put back.
“We are at the whim of politicians, whether or not they find some agreement over these issues in the future,” he said. “If we go by their track record then I have absolutely no faith in their ability to deliver on these issues.”
Mr Benstead’s solicitor, Paul Pierce of KRW Law, added: “It’s regrettable that my client had to bring these proceedings only to be informed at the door of the court that this case is going to be processed now for investigation.
“This now appears to be a continued pattern of behaviour on the part of the state, where victims and their families have been forced to bring cases to court, only to be informed that what they had asked for will be given to them. It’s indicative of an approach that engenders delay.”