UNLESS you are a member of a family fighting for truth and justice, it’s impossible to understand just how emotional it must be to have it finally confirmed in court for all the world to see, that your loved one, killed and labelled as a terrorist by agencies of the British government during the Troubles, was, in fact, an unarmed innocent civilian.

However, like a factory conveyor belt, as one act of injustice is acknowledged by the British government, another family comes to the fore.

On Wednesday July 12 1972, 32-year-old Thomas Burns was enjoying a drink with his friends in the Glenpark social club in Belfast. 

At about 1am, as the sound of sporadic gunfire heard earlier appeared to have ceased, the friends decided to make their way home to their families.

A British army base located close to the social club used an arc searchlight during the hours of darkness. 

However, due to incidents of loyalist gunmen taking shots at patrons leaving the club, soldiers at the base were well accustomed to turning off the light when requested to allow them to exit the premises under cover of darkness.

As the friends prepared to leave, Burns was first to the door and shouted down to the soldiers to turn off the light. 

With no sign of the light going off, Burns shouted down a second time. 

Still, the light remained on. After another few minutes waiting, he leaned out from the relative safety of cover to ask again. 

As he did so, a British soldier fired two shots, hitting Burns in the chest.

Bleeding heavily from his wounds, he was dragged back into the club by his friends. 

Seconds later, one of them, Malachy Fanning, went outside to call for an ambulance and a priest. By now, the arc light was off.

No ambulance ever came. Instead, British soldiers arrived in an armoured vehicle and ordered the friends to hand Burns over to them. 

As Burns’s condition was deteriorating, the British soldiers were encouraged to take him to Mater Hospital, situated no more than three minutes away. 

The vehicle set off down Oldpark Road where the vehicle broke down and came under fire. Eventually, the vehicle slowly moved off down towards a British army checkpoint.

Witnesses who had been allowed to travel with Burns state that at this checkpoint, they felt threatened and intimidated when two members of the Ulster Defence Association appeared on the scene. 

It was only when Fanning produced his ID card confirming he was a serving member of the British Royal Navy and showed it to the Royal Marines that they intervened. 

When the military ambulance finally arrived, only two people, Jim McLaughlin and one other were permitted to accompany Burns to the hospital.

Despite previously being advised of the hospital only minutes away, Burns instead was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, which was further away, where he was admitted at 1.55am, almost one hour after being shot. 

Sadly, at 7.35am Thomas Burns lost his fight for life. However for his family, like many other families in the North of Ireland, the fight for the truth of why Burns was shot was just beginning.

As in many cases, the pain of losing a loved one in such a needless fashion is made worse when the finger of blame for their premature death, instead of being placed where it should be — on the person who pulled the trigger — is pointed back at the victim. This case would be no different.

In the early days of the Troubles, investigating incidents involving British soldiers was the responsibility of the military police. 

In essence, one branch of the British army investigated another branch of the British army.

The problems with this are numerous. For instance, the time from when the incident occurred to when the statements were taken could be hours or days. 

Moreover, not all statements were taken face to face. The statements were not detailed, cross-referenced and scrutinised for inconsistencies by the military police.

Nor were statements assessed against the location, to see if what the soldiers claimed to have witnessed could be seen from where they claimed to have been positioned.

However, again, like others incidents of this nature, while the military police were obtaining statements, in another branch of the British army, a press report was released to the media, implying that their soldiers had returned fire and killed a gunman. 

The justification by the security forces for taking the life of Thomas Burns had begun.

Although Burns had no association with any republican movement, his wife Kathleen received a notification from the Royal Ulster Constabulary regarding the funeral arrangements. 

It stipulated the route the funeral cortege must take and warned that displaying the tricolour flag was prohibited. 

The reason for this was, of course, to reinforce the media story that had portrayed Burns as a republican gunman.

However, the British army account began to unravel in 1977, when Kathleen Burns was awarded criminal injuries compensation. 

This was confirmation that Thomas had died of a criminal injury, and therefore had been “unlawfully killed” and his death was not “misadventure” which was the verdict the jury returned in the coroner’s court in 1973.

When the historical enquiries team (HET) completed its investigation into the death of Burns before being disbanded in 2013, one paragraph appertaining to the results of the firearm residue swabs taken from both Burns and his friend Jim McLoughlin stated: “No lead was detected on the hand swabs and nothing of evidential value was found following an examination of Tommy’s clothing. 

“No trace of firearms was found at the scene and there was no forensic evidence to connect Tommy or Jim to a firearm.”

The HET also identified inconsistencies within the British soldiers’ statements. 

One former soldier who the HET was able to interview recalled the event. However, his recollections significantly differ from the statements gathered by the military police.

Confirmation of Burns’s innocence is there for all to see in the conclusion reached by the HET: “Tommy’s death was a tragedy which should not have happened. 

“He was not a gunman and he did not pose any threat to the security forces.”

Yet despite all this, the family of Thomas Burns has continued to be denied truth and justice, beginning with a fresh inquest followed by a full investigation into his death.

This case, like many others, highlights the lack of thorough investigations which have left families fighting for decades to clear the names of their loved ones. 

It is also why, when military veterans, commentators and politicians speak out in defence of former British soldiers facing questioning over historic shootings, their statements must be challenged and where necessary corrected with facts.

Moreover, the case of Thomas Burns, like many others, some yet to be highlighted, demolishes any suggestion that reinvestigating cases of this nature is pointless because they were all investigated at the time. 

For anyone to make such a suggestion insulting to the families and an attempt to deny the innocent victims justice. This must not be allowed to happen.