Nicholas Mercer’s letter to the Times
A group of retired generals has written a letter to the Prime Minister, urging him to ‘disapply’ the European Convention on Human Rights and introduce some unspecified changes to the proposals for dealing with legacy, in Northern Ireland.
Our chair, a retired brigadier, and our Director, have prepared a short response to the generals. Our letter to the Times (in the link above) was published on 13/11/25. A similar letter from the former command legal advisor, Iraq War 2003, Lt Col (ret’d) Nicholas Mercer was also published and is also available in the link above.
These retired senior officers believe that one of the biggest threats to the operational effectiveness of our armed forces is what they refer to as “lawfare”. On the contrary, one of the biggest risks is from the widespread myths and misunderstandings about the rule of law and human rights that are being put about by those who should know better and who are stoking the fears of elderly veterans.
They claim not to be calling for impunity for the small number of British soldiers that may have perpetrated serious crimes in Northern Ireland – but what then do they seek? They speak of the need for “fairness”. That is exactly what a principled adherence to the rule of law requires and which they, as former members of our armed forces, should support. You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.
The vast majority of British soldiers who served in NI did so in appallingly difficult circumstances and they did so with distinction. They behaved in accordance with the rules of engagement and the law, as they understood it to be. As long as they did so, they have nothing to fear.
A small number did not. That is why David Cameron offered the fulsome apology that he did in 2010, years after Bloody Sunday. A small number of other inquests have also revealed unlawful killing, such as those perpetrated at Ballymurphy. Without the ECHR, those inquests would not have happened. Do these retired senior officers consider that those inquests and inquiries should not have taken place?
And what about all those soldiers murdered by the IRA and other paramilitaries whose cases were shut down by the last government’s despised Legacy Act. An act that united communities across NI in opposition to it and which the courts (not politicians) declared to be unlawful. Critics of the ECHR and the plans to repeal the Legacy Act have nothing to say to the family of Pte Tony Harrison – a 21 year old paratrooper murdered by the IRA while off duty and at home – whose case has been shut down by the Act. They have nothing to say to the 224 other criminal cases involving former service personnel in NI that were also shut down by the Act. Or the numerous other military victims of republican terrorists on the mainland – the victims of the Guildford pub bombing; the Deal and Inglis barracks bombings; the M62 bombing – cases that were never solved and – unless the Legacy Act is overturned and replaced – never will be. It is no answer to say that in those cases there was precious little chance of a conviction after successive governments hobbled the coronial service and police units tasked with investigating historical killings and refused to provide the resources needed to conduct independent investigations. Military (and civilian) victims have the right to an effective investigation and, if the evidence supports it, a prosecution. But the last government’s Legacy Act made that impossible.
There has been just one conviction of a veteran since the Good Friday Agreement – and he got a suspended sentence for manslaughter. The tiny number of prosecutions of veterans that have resulted in an acquittal were founded upon serious evidence to suggest that a crime had been committed. The reason they came so late in the day was because there had been no investigation or accountability at the time, something some senior soldiers and others colluded in. One conviction does not amount to a witch hunt of British soldiers. There are many people inside the armed forces that understand that. They recognise that there is no time limit on a criminal prosecution, that the law must apply to them and they do not want to serve alongside those that break the law, or who think they have the right to do so with impunity.
The wider implications for the UK coming out of the European Convention on Human Rights are dreadful for British soldiers. Service people benefit from it every day. There has not been a single case that has second-guessed a commanding officer’s decisions on the battlefield. Modern combat is governed by carefully constructed rules of engagement, to ensure military action is appropriate and proportionate, and therefore lawful; the antithesis of what happened on Bloody Sunday. Convention law protects our forces fighting overseas and at home. It requires that they be given reasonably safe equipment, investigations to be conducted into alleged abuse, and it allows bereaved military families to get answers when their loved ones die during their service. It also protects those we detain, for very good reason. Ask Baha Moussa’s family. The people in our armed forces that we support do not want impunity or special treatment. They work hard to uphold the rule of law. They accept that they are both bound by it and protected by it.
Brig (ret’d) John Donnelly CBE, Chair of Trustees, CMJ
Emma Norton, Director, CMJ