March 8, 2026
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“England’s cover-up of its collusion with the murderous Anti-Catholic Glenanne Gang brazenly continues as revealed in this Irish News article. … But also covered is the heroic truth campaign of Eugene Reavey of South Armagh.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
Eugene Reavey and Fr. McManus. Fermanagh, August 2025
“Stand-off” over Glenanne Gang documents, court told
Alan Erwin. Irish News. Belfast. Saturday, September 7, 2026.
THE Secretary of State is allegedly trying to obtain a veto over any police disclosure of sensitive documents in civil actions by relatives of loyalist paramilitary murder victims, the High Court heard yesterday.
Counsel for two bereaved families claimed a dispute between Hilary Benn and Chief Constable Jon Boutcher about handling issues of potential national security could further delay the cases.
The development came as lawyers representing the Secretary of State confirmed he is seeking to intervene in lawsuits centered on alleged security force collusion with the terrorist killers.
Eugene Reavey is suing the PSNI and Ministry of Defense for misfeasance in public office in connection with the murder of his three brothers 50 years ago.
John Martin, Brian, and Anthony Reavey were shot dead by masked intruders at the family’s home in Whitecross, south Armagh, in January 1976. Known as the Glenanne Gang, the UVF unit at the center of the action is believed to have been responsible for up to 120 deaths in a sustained killing spree at the height of the Troubles. The unit allegedly contained members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defense Regiment.
Mr. Reavey’s case is part of a wider group of litigation brought by families of victims, and those wounded in the series of Troubles-era murders and attempted murders.
A second action relates to the double murder of GAA fans Sean Farmer and Colm McCartney at a dummy roadblock in Altnamackin, Co Armagh, in August 1975.
With both cases hit by a series of delays related to the disclosure of sensitive documents by the defendants, Mr. Justice Rooney has repeatedly insisted the trials will get underway next month.
However, it emerged yesterday that the UK government and the Chief Constable are in disagreement about a Public Interest Immunity (PII) process for redacting material on grounds of national security.
Based on a Supreme Court judgment, lawyers for the Secretary of State argued that he should oversee any PII claim over documents to be provided by the PSNI.
The Chief Constable should also seek a ministerial certificate on the issue in all cases involving national security, it was contended.
Counsel representing Mr. Boutcher, Oliver Sanders KC, indicated that police have made their own PII claims since a previous practice was abandoned two years ago. He described the latest development as an impasse between the PSNI and the government.
“What the NI Office is now seeking, to some extent, is more control over the process,” he added.
Despite the dispute, Mr. Sanders insisted the relationship between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State remains amicable.
But a barrister for the Reavey and Farmer families said he had been left bemused by a disagreement between two branches of the state.
Desmond Fahy KC submitted: “It seems that what is being attempted here is the introduction of a veto on the part of the Secretary of State by invoking national security.”
He argued that government representatives had shown no interest in either family in the 50 years since their loved ones were murdered.
“Here we are, a matter of weeks before the hearings… and the Secretary of State is seeking to intervene in a process ongoing for 18 months or two years on the basis there are issues of national security,” he said.
Stressing the Ministry of Defense’s role as a defendant in the two actions, he claimed the government would have known about the PII process and voiced concern over any potential further hold-ups.
“A stand-off between the Secretary of State and Chief Constable… is going to introduce delay in this process,” the barrister predicted.
Mr. Justice Rooney stated: “I don’t want these matters delayed yet again because of a dispute between the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable. It just can’t happen.”
