Reflecting on past actions, 63-year-old Ian Hurst shares deep regret over revealing the identity of British army’s top secret IRA spy two decades ago. Hurst believes his revelation publicly marking Freddie Scappaticci, a Belfast builder and senior IRA member, as the double agent “Stakeknife,” was necessary to shed light on the British government’s role in Troubles-related murders. However, the adverse consequences in recent years have made him rethink his decision.
He ponders the distress his actions have caused to grieving families. Many of their loved ones fell victim to a notorious internal security unit of the IRA, known as the “nutting squad,” which, during the 1980s, was overseen by Scappaticci and was responsible for the grievous torture and death of suspected informants.
The incomparable position Scappaticci held within the IRA might not have been exposed if Hurst hadn’t singled him out in 2003. In Hurst’s words, “There was a hefty price to pay for it; it was paid by us collectively and especially by the bereaved families. Reflecting back, I wouldn’t cause such a scene if I had the chance to go back in time. I was naïve.”
The fallout has caused much pain, with the families who not only suffered personally but systematic errors have remained uncorrected. On looking back, Hurst acknowledges his misjudgement and apologises for it.
Scappaticci, who consistently refuted being Stakeknife, died at 77 in March. He absconded to England when his identity was disclosed in the media in 2003, and he lived under an alias until his death.
Even though Scappaticci’s identity is omitted from the inquiry report known as Operation Kenova due to the UK government’s policy to ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) matters concerning sensitive intelligence, he is deemed as the crowning glory of British military intelligence. Yet, the thorough seven-year investigation concluded that his operations, ironically, took more lives than they saved.
In a recent gathering at a Belfast hotel, the interim findings of a report were announced by Jon Boutcher, its author. Boutcher highlighted his awareness regarding the safeguarding of agent identities but expressed his expectation that Stakeknife would be revealed in the final Kenova report. Boutcher, currently the Chief Constable of the Northern Ireland Police Service, confessed the stance of not revealing this identity was no longer sustainable.
Yet, Hurst criticised the lack of definitive identification of Stakeknife as Mr Scappaticci in the report, which has been in progress for almost seven years. Hurst, originally from Bolton, had been a part of the British army’s Force Research Unit, known for its controversial recruitment and management of Stakeknife and other informers during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Despite never having met Scappaticci, Hurst had followed his career closely.
The Kenova inquiry did not lead to prosecutions since the Public Prosecution Service of the North claimed there was insufficient evidence against 32 suspects – involving former FRU officers, retired British army officers, and potentially members of the IRA.
Hurst, who exited the army over thirty years ago after marrying a nurse from Co Donegal, spoke disparagingly about the report, expressing that it added little value to the existing narrative of the Stakeknife account. He requested more clarity regarding the facts of who was aware of the situation, and when and how they knew it. According to Hurst, this would provide the public and the affected families with the exact information about the events, which was what he believed was missing in the report.
Many, including a relative of the first victim linked to “Scap”, have not agreed with Hurst’s viewpoint.
Earlier this week, Seamus Kearney was given further information from the Kenova team about his brother Michael Kearney, who was allegedly murdered by the IRA in 1979. Michael, who was quite wrongfully suspected of informing, could have had his life spared had the security officials acted on the intelligence they had received, according to a confidential briefing with investigators prior to the report publication.
Kearney said, “I am talking from personal experience here, not theory like Ian Hurst. Regardless of the situation, it’s extremely distressing for all involved.” He continued, “In my particular case, through the Kenova investigation, I was able to obtain classified intelligence, which revealed that Michael was viewed as being in serious danger during his 16-day disappearance post-abduction, according to three IRA internal security team members.”
He then hinted at a potential security infiltration with his comments, “If three people from internal security were reporting back, then it’s plausible that more than Scappaticci were informing about Michael. Nobody decided to act on this crucial insight, however.”
Despite receiving intelligence, no action was taken by the British Army or the RUC special branch to save the life of the West Belfast-based trainee electrician. The restricted archives disclose Michael Kearney, who had been an IRA member since 1978, requested to pray before he was shot by two different individuals on an isolated Fermanagh border road in the early morning of July 12, 1979.
Plans are in place for the Kearney family to file a civil lawsuit against the British Ministry of Defence, with the affirmation of support from a Kenova investigator. Kearney justified this by stating British government was complicit in his brother’s assassination, though he refrained from critiquing Ian Hurst, acknowledging his efforts in exposing Scappaticci.
There is scepticism over the belief in Stakeknife’s characterisation as a pivotal figure in British military intelligence, affiliated with the saving of hundreds of lives; this is outlined in the comprehensive 208-page report. The report argues the true numbers of lives saved by this prominent intelligence figure likely falls within high single or low double digits, suggesting the high regard for Stakeknife is largely based on myths and imaginary tales.
Kenova pointed out some errors in a 2004 book co-written by Hurst under the pen name Martin Ingram. These included a claim about security forces shielding ‘Stakeknife’ by re-directing loyalist paramilitaries to focus on different targets, which was refuted in the report. It further negated the book’s attribution of several murders to ‘Stakeknife’, stating they were unrelated to the individual in question.
Shortly after the report was made public, Hurst contacted Boutcher via email, expressing reservations about the confidential files used to form the basis of Kenova’s conclusions. Boutcher, in the report, acknowledged the challenges in procuring “sensitive intelligence” material for Troubles-related inquiries. Despite this, he said his team was successful in accessing records that were previously inaccessible, helping provide valuable information to affected families.
However, Hurst disputes this claim. He firmly believes that Kenova’s report cannot be categorised as “conclusive” in any manner since crucial intelligence documents are now non-existent. He emphasised the indispensable nature of these documents, saying, “The secret document registry for Scappaticci and the FRU had been completely obliterated”. He advised against accepting the report at face value.
The investigation dismissed as ‘untenable’ certain claims emerging from FRU assessments that were wholly embraced by security forces. These claims suggested that intelligence provided by ‘Stakeknife’ spared several lives. Contrarily, the investigation discovered that his continued operation as an agent likely led to more deaths than lives saved.
Boutcher held a press conference after the report’s release where he stated that British security forces ignored murders committed by their agents within the IRA and refused to penalise them – a behaviour that would be deemed absolutely unacceptable in contemporary times.
The report’s findings of a reduced number of lives spared through ‘Stakeknife’s’ action was, however, dismissed by Hurst.
Acknowledging a variety of opinions and conjectures surrounding the actions of agent Stakeknife, often based on distorted or misinterpreted information, victims’ families will be given additional details via individual reports. These personal reports will precede a final, public report. Despite this, Hurst expressed low confidence in the final document, believing it won’t alter from its current state. He conveyed his pleasure for those families finding satisfaction in individual conclusions but suggested others may feel disadvantaged.
His primary worry is not to enhance or provoke further pain for bereaved families. If the Kearney family is truly finding some solace in this process, he respects that entirely.
From his perspective, it was initially worth exposing Scappaticci, but upon reflection, he’s reevaluating. By drawing a parallel to the movie Men in Black, he suggests that it would be more compassionate if the Men in Black were to arrive and simply erase memories, so people could revert to their uncomplicated lives.