Special Grammar?

It is an awkward construct, Oristar, but it could be make to work, lamely, by inserting commas:

" . . . after admitting that he shot,[/b] in the head,[/b] a British peace activist . . . "

Most native English speakers would not have constructed the sentence in that manner, so this is not an issue of grammar, but of structure, of syntax. I will venture to say that most native English speakers would have written:

" . . . after admitting that he [had] shot a British peace activist in the head . . . "

Strictly speaking, it is a grammatical error not to have used "had" (as i show in the brackets, above), because the act of shooting the activist was prior to the arrest. So, " . . . has been arrested . . ." is a present tense statement which requires a past tense expession of anything to which it is anterior (anything which occurred in the past relative to the arrest), and so, " . . . he had shot a British peace activist . . ."

This is just a badly constructed sentence, which doesn't help you when you are trying to learn the language in which it has been slapped together . . .

That sentence is what the working class Englishman would fondly term "an awkward bastard."

Thanks Setanta, I've been inspired by you very much.

Happy New Year to you and A2K!

A very prosperous and happy New Year to you, Oristar . . .

May I add my Happy New Year wishes to both of you! Setanta explained this one very well, and I don't blame you, oristar, for being confused!

Happy New Year!