RUC officer who shot Colum Marks urges Belfast lawyer to withdraw 'murder' claim

The officer was initially cleared of any wrong-doing, as it was accepted by both the police and PPS at the time that he genuinely believed Marks would have been routinely armed while carrying out such an attack.

However, he then endured a lengthy prosecution ordeal when, 25 years after the fatal shooting, someone who claimed to be a previously unidentified witness made a statement.

Lawyers acting for the Marks’ family also commissioned a private forensic report suggesting it was possible the IRA man was shot in the back.

Officer B has stated that although he has been interviewed under caution in relation to the death of Mr Marks, by both the police and the Police Ombudsman NI (PONI), he has not been arrested on suspicion of murder or any other offence.

On Monday this week, the News Letter published several articles highlighting the ordeal being faced by the ex-officer who has now endured several investigations – the latest lasting seven years before the PPS announced its ‘no prosecution’ decision in May.

Referring to the Officer B case in the Commons on Tuesday, DUP MP Ian Paisley said that the “vindictive and vexatious” prosecutions of former security forces members is an ongoing issue, and that “Colum Marks was lawfully shot dead… because he was about to murder and maim in Downpatrick”.

Under Parliamentary privilege, Mr Paisley referred to a “snake-oil salesman of a legal practitioner” who wants to “take this person – this 'RUC murderer' – back to court on behalf of the Marks family,” and added: “That is vindictive and it is ongoing, and those matters do offend”.

Although Mr Paisley did not refer to any lawyer by name, Gavin Booth of Phoenix Law, who represents the Marks family, spoke to BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback programme on Thursday to express concern.

Mr Booth said: “I represent my clients’ beliefs. From the start they have always believed that the circumstances are at least disputed, and I think everybody will accept that.”

He said: "If he shot him in the back we would say that is murder. That’s what the case is. Officer B, to be clear, is fully entitled to be innocent before the law like everybody else.”

But Mr Booth added: “The family believe it was murder, the officer was arrested for murder.”

Mr Booth also said Mr Paisley’s “snake oil” claim “implies dishonesty”.

The solicitor said he would be writing to the Speaker of the House over what he described as “an unjustifiable attack,” and called on Mr Paisley to repeat his claims outside of Parliament.

"I think we should let a judge decide what he would say in terms of this, and whether I am a snake oil salesman, or whether I am a normal member of the legal profession doing my job for a family bereaved".

Speaking following the broadcast, Officer B told the News Letter he has asked Phoenix Law to remove a reference to “the RUC murder of Colum Marks” from its website which, as of Thursday evening, had not happened.

He also said Mr Booth should not be describing the death of Colum Marks as ‘murder’ – based on the opinion of the Marks family.

The News Letter asked Mr Booth if he stood over his assertion that Officer B had been “arrested for murder,” and why he repeatedly referred to the death as murder.

Mr Booth did not answer the questions directly, but said: “I was invited on to Talkback to discuss an attack on my professional character by an MP under the cover of [Parliamentary] privilege. I explained that Officer B was innocent in the eyes of the law, but that my lay clients have real concerns about the decision of the PPS. It is my role as a solicitor to advocate on behalf of my clients.”

PONI investigation began in 2017

The Police Ombudsman NI (PONI) investigation into the 1991 fatal shooting of Colum Marks began in 2017, with a file then sent to the PPS for consideration in August 2021.​Announcing its ‘no prosecution’ decision in May this year, deputy director of public prosecutions, Michael Agnew,said: “After careful consideration of all the available evidence, it was concluded by the prosecution team that it was insufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.”

Officer B had been involved in the close observation of an IRA team preparing a mortar attack at St Patrick's Avenue when, in response to the deployment of a uniformed HMSU (Headquarters Mobile Support Unit) reaction team, Marks ran across an adjacent field in his direction.

In the poor light, and unable to see if Marks was carrying a weapon, Officer B said he fired two warning shots as well as shouting for Marks to stop. When Marks continued in his direction, Officer B fired five single shots.Mr Agnew said: “The evidence established that Mr Marks was unarmed when he was shot. However, the surrounding circumstances presented significant difficulties in proving to the criminal standard that Officer B did not have a genuine belief that his life was at risk; or that … the amount of force used was unreasonable.”

Mr Agnew added: “An important aspect of this decision was the consideration of whether the evidence established that Mr Marks was shot in the back.“There was some new forensic evidence which suggested that two wounds to the back of Mr Marks may have been entry wounds. However, this evidence was not conclusive and was also inconsistent with examinations of Mr Marks’ body at the time which had identified the relevant wounds as exit wounds.

“On the available evidence, therefore, there was no reasonable prospect of proving that Officer B fired shots into the back of the deceased.”The family of Colum Marks has requested a review of the 'no prosecution' decision.The PPS said: “This process will be carried out in line with the procedure set out in the PPS Code for Prosecutors. It would be inappropriate to comment any further given that a review of the decision is to be conducted.”