According to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, his government is looking at ‘every conceivable way’ to prevent me and at least 300 other people from receiving compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the 1970s.

This issue of compensation arises from the decision by the British Supreme Court in May 2020 that the Interim Custody Order (ICO) or internment order issued against me was unlawful.

Internment was demanded by the Unionist government in 1971 and imposed by the British on 9 August of that year. It had been used in every decade since partition in 1920. Internment saw thousands of armed troops smash their way into nationalist homes to arrest 342 men and boys.

They were dragged from their beds, and many were beaten: 14 people — the ‘Hooded Men’ — were subjected to days of sustained torture, and 25 people were killed in the following four days.

In Ballymurphy in west Belfast, 11 local citizens — including a priest and mother of eight — were killed by the Paras in the Ballymurphy Massacre.  Five months later, the Paras attacked an anti-internment march in Derry and killed 14 people: Bloody Sunday was another of many dark days in the conflict.

In July 1972 another five citizens, this time in Springhill, were killed by the British Army. They included another priest and a 13-year-old girl.

I was interned in 1972, released and re-interned in July 1973. On Christmas Eve 1973, four of us made a failed attempt to escape. The following July, I tried again and failed. Again. For these two escape attempts, I was sentenced by a Diplock non-jury court to five years for attempting to escape from ‘lawful custody’.

Fast forward 32 years to 2009 and a researcher working for the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry uncovered a memorandum, dated 8 July 1974, from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the British Attorney General. In it, the DPP warned the Attorney General that before they decided to go ahead with the escape charges, they should understand there was the possibility that the would-be escapers and ‘many other detainees held under the Orders which have not been signed by the Secretary of State himself may be unlawfully detained.’

It took 10 years of diligent work on the part of my lawyers, but eventually the British Supreme Court in 2020 ruled that I had been unlawfully detained.

The Supreme Court quashed my two convictions. But the Department of Justice in the North decided in 2021 that I was ineligible for compensation. I challenged this decision. In April 2023 Justice Colton concluded that it was ‘beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice, that is, the applicant is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.’ He added: ‘I am satisfied that the applicant meets the test for compensation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.’

Almost immediately, Conservative politicians and unionists condemned the decision. Several British Tory Lords brought in a rushed legal amendment that would deny compensation to any internee whose interim custody order had not been personally considered by the Secretary of State.

They were persuaded to drop this in favour of a formal British government amendment which is now part of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, or ‘Legacy Act’. I challenged the Department of Justice decision, but the Appeal Court in Belfast decided they could not arrive at a decision because of the new law.

The Act states that no one can take a civil action or continue with one already in place if the person bringing the action claims that their imprisonment occurred because an interim custody order was unlawfully signed.

Most of the major parties on the island, along with the Irish government, victims’ groups and human rights organisations, have opposed the law. Many correctly saw it as an effort by the British government to protect its forces and agents and politicians

While in opposition, the British Labour Party committed to getting rid of the Legacy Act. It is obvious now they will not do this.

British Secretary of State Hilary Benn’s treatment of the family of the GAA’s Seán Brown is an example of that. Mr Brown was killed by loyalists who included many British government agents. Mr Benn is blocking the Brown family from getting the public inquiry they are entitled to.

Hilary Benn should know better. He should stand up for the Brown family instead of letting the securocrats run him. His father, the late Tony Benn, used to say, ‘Never wrestle with a chimney sweep. You will get very dirty.’ He was talking about how to keep high standards. A very wise piece of advice which his son should emulate.

Mr Starmer clearly doesn’t mind getting dirty. It will be interesting to see what ‘conceivable way’ he will invent to prevent me and the other unlawfully detained former prisoners from getting compensation.

Mr Starmer’s arrogance is in keeping with the imperial mindset that survives yet in the heart of the British establishment. Britannia used to rule the waves. That leads to strange notions of superiority and the lack of self-awareness so ably demonstrated by Mr Starmer. His remarks are another example of Britannia waiving the rules.

Mr Starmer’s stated intention to subvert the laws he is supposed to uphold will come as no surprise to those in Ireland and in countless other states around the world who have experienced British colonial law. The self-proclaimed leading British counter-insurgency expert Frank Kitson described it well in his 1971 manual, Low-Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency & Peacekeeping:

‘The law should be used as just another weapon in the Government’s arsenal, and in this case it becomes little more than a propaganda cover for the disposal of unwanted members of the public.’

So I will continue to pursue this case. I have no personal interest in compensation for myself. If any comes to me at the end of this process, I will donate it to good causes.