Finucane: Widow wins right to challenge alleged government failures

Geraldine Finucane has long been campaigning for a public inquiry into her husband's death

The widow of murdered solicitor Pat Finucane has won High Court permission to challenge an alleged failure to act on a finding that his killing has never been effectively investigated.

Geraldine Finucane was granted leave to seek a judicial review as part of her ongoing fight to secure a public inquiry into her husband's death.

Mr Finucane was shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries in 1989.

The high profile Catholic solicitor, 39, lived and worked in Belfast.

There have been long-standing allegations that members of the UK security forces colluded in his murder.

• Q&A: The murder of Pat Finucane

• Legal action launched over Pat Finucane murder

• Widow says family 'vindicated' by Supreme Court

In February last year, the Supreme Court held that previous inquiries into the assassination did not meet human rights standards.

Mrs Justice Keegan ruled on Friday that Mrs Finucane had established an arguable case that the government's delay in taking action since then was unlawful.

Proceedings will now advance to a full hearing later this year.

The judge said: "This is not a guarantee of success, but it's clear to me and fairly obvious that there's already a passage of time... that will require to be explained in evidence."

His family have campaigned ever since for a full examination of alleged security force collusion with the killers.

Pat Finucane, a 39-year-old solicitor, was shot dead in front of his wife and children in 1989

Lawyers for Secretary of State Julian Smith insisted he is committed to making a decision on their demands for a public inquiry as soon as possible.

Although Mr Smith was due to meet Mrs Finucane to discuss the case last week, that arrangement has been postponed until 21 February.

Delay 'beggars belief'

During the judicial review hearing, a barrister for the murdered solicitor's family claimed they are being treated with contempt.

It was contended that the level of delay since the Supreme Court reached its decision "beggars belief".

Counsel for the secretary of state stressed the decision-making process involved a number of stages, including meeting the family and consultations across departments and with the prime minister.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Keegan acknowledged Mr Smith's "bona fides" in dealing with the issue.

"I do not accept the argument that there's been any abdication of responsibility by the secretary of state," she said.

"But there is, in my view, an arguable case in relation to the delay that has been occasioned in reaching a decision."

She added that efforts should continue on the ground "to deal with this difficult case in a collaborative way".