Labour's Troubles Bill Entrenches Impunity for the British State and Its Soldiers
Source: Ethan Rooney. "The British State Is Dodging Accountability for the Troubles." October 17, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that Britain's Labour government is using a new law about the Troubles to protect its own soldiers and officials from being held to account. He says claims that veterans are being hounded are false, since very few soldiers were ever prosecuted, and that giving the government's own attorney general control over prosecutions lets the state judge itself.
Conclusion
The British state, through Labour's amended Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, is evading accountability for its conduct during the Troubles and effectively shielding British soldiers from prosecution, so the bill remains seriously flawed and should not be accepted as a genuine legacy mechanism.
Premises
- The British state has a documented record of abuses during the Troubles, including collusion with loyalist paramilitaries (acknowledged by David Cameron and the de Silva review) and Bloody Sunday, which the author says is obscured by the framing of the army as a neutral party in a sectarian conflict.
- Claims that veterans are being unfairly targeted lack evidentiary support: the DUP claimed 90 percent of HET cases involved army killings when the real figure was about 30 percent, and in fact only 32 of 1,615 HET cases were attributed to the army.
- Prosecutions of soldiers have in practice been rare: of 68 cases considered between 2012 and 2024, only 6 prosecutions involved the military and only one produced a conviction, with a suspended sentence, so veterans have not been subject to harassment.
- Labour ministers' rhetoric (Bryant's 'thank you for your service' and 'no equivalence' with terrorists, and Carns's warnings) and the October 13 amendments signal a prioritization of protecting soldiers over accountability.
- The amendments give the government-appointed attorney general exclusive authority over prosecution decisions, which places decisions about state forces' crimes in the hands of the state itself and, per Michelle O'Neill, turns the bill into a 'veterans' charter'.
- The British state has an institutional interest in ending the Troubles politically, and the legacy machinery (the troubled ICRIR, the Joint Committee on Human Rights' concerns about independence and families' roles) is not inspiring public confidence.
Assumptions
- Accountability for state actors requires prosecutorial decisions to be independent of the government whose forces are implicated
- The low rate of soldier prosecutions reflects impunity rather than a lack of evidence or legitimate legal barriers
- The government's rhetoric and amendments reflect a real intent to protect soldiers rather than merely reassure them
- Treating lawful soldier actions as distinct from terrorism is, in practice, a way of foreclosing scrutiny of unlawful soldier actions
- The attorney general would not exercise this authority independently or impartially
- Victims' families' demands for investigation and prosecution should take priority over political interest in closing the past