Christy Walsh  ✒ At this year's Ard Fheis, Mary Lou McDonald, and SF, have switched from opposition to the Special Criminal Courts (SCC), to the endorsement of them. 

In doing so, SFROI have also formally broken away from any solidarity with international organisations, such as, Amnesty International, the UN, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, who all continue to call for the Special Criminal Courts to be abolished regardless of SF’s inexplicable U-turn.

I am surprised they hadn’t endorsed the SCCs sooner, especially after it had previously endorsed Diplock Trials back in 2007. Albeit SF had attempted to sell the name change from Non-Jury Diplock Trials to just Non-Jury Trials as meaning an end to Diplock style trials. It wasn’t. However, in an attempt to save face, SFUK then conceded that the name change had resulted in fewer non-jury trials.

Fewer non-jury trials does not make them safer or fairer for those on trial. Instead, they serve to increase the negative stigma on anyone subjected to a Diplock style trial because the defendant will be portrayed in prejudicial light. In depriving a person from their right to a jury trial, an adverse inference is drawn, before a trial can be held, and the accused will be portrayed as a threat to a jury and thus removes any presumption of innocence. In other words, an accused person might not recover from the pretrial prejudice created that alleges that the accused is a dangerous person. In addition, the burden on the prosecution to prove its case is much less.

It is worth considering the origins of the falsehood that SF, in both jurisdictions on this island, now support. In the north of Ireland, the Diplock Commission recommended the abolishment of jury trials on the false assertion that juries had been intimidated. The Commission confirmed that it found no evidence of any jury being intimidated before recommending that juries in scheduled offence cases should be abolished. However, when one examines the Diplock Commission’s remit one can readily see that its primary function was to find a more palatable alternative to internment without trial.
1. We were appointed to consider “what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book, otherwise than by internment, by the Executive, individuals involved in terrorist activities, particularly those who plan and direct, but do not necessarily take part in, terrorist acts; and to make recommendations.”

This should be considered in light of the failure of internment and Brigadier Frank Kitson’s arguments that the law should be used as just another weapon in the Government’s arsenal to suppress insurgency.

Simultaneously in the south of Ireland, the non-jury Special Criminal Courts were established on the same false claim that juries were also being intimidated in the south. In both its 2010 and 2013 reports on Jury Service, The Law Review Commission repeats that the:

Minister for Justice noted that the Garda Síochána had confirmed that instances of jury intimidation had occurred and that it was more surreptitious than witness intimidation.

The Commission was not overly confident in the claim that it only happens in secret. On that basis, the Commission tactfully concluded that jury intimidation was more an anecdotal claim than actually true or false.

There is no more evidence of jury intimidation today as there was in 1972. SF now support non-jury trials in the south of Ireland if the term ‘emergency’ is dropped and replaced with the word ‘exceptional’ grounds and that the law is put on a more permanent footing. SF’s endorsement of non-jury trials is now on a united Ireland basis and is nothing more than a change in its values and strategy. Jurors have not been threatened in recent times any more than they were back in 1972. 

The only thing that has changed is SF, preparing to enter government, and perhaps its endorsement of oppressive and draconian measures is an indicator that they will be as ruthless or oppressive as any Brit government if they feel they need to be.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Sinn Fein’s United Ireland Endorsement Of Non-jury Trials

Christy Walsh  ✒ At this year's Ard Fheis, Mary Lou McDonald, and SF, have switched from opposition to the Special Criminal Courts (SCC), to the endorsement of them. 

In doing so, SFROI have also formally broken away from any solidarity with international organisations, such as, Amnesty International, the UN, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, who all continue to call for the Special Criminal Courts to be abolished regardless of SF’s inexplicable U-turn.

I am surprised they hadn’t endorsed the SCCs sooner, especially after it had previously endorsed Diplock Trials back in 2007. Albeit SF had attempted to sell the name change from Non-Jury Diplock Trials to just Non-Jury Trials as meaning an end to Diplock style trials. It wasn’t. However, in an attempt to save face, SFUK then conceded that the name change had resulted in fewer non-jury trials.

Fewer non-jury trials does not make them safer or fairer for those on trial. Instead, they serve to increase the negative stigma on anyone subjected to a Diplock style trial because the defendant will be portrayed in prejudicial light. In depriving a person from their right to a jury trial, an adverse inference is drawn, before a trial can be held, and the accused will be portrayed as a threat to a jury and thus removes any presumption of innocence. In other words, an accused person might not recover from the pretrial prejudice created that alleges that the accused is a dangerous person. In addition, the burden on the prosecution to prove its case is much less.

It is worth considering the origins of the falsehood that SF, in both jurisdictions on this island, now support. In the north of Ireland, the Diplock Commission recommended the abolishment of jury trials on the false assertion that juries had been intimidated. The Commission confirmed that it found no evidence of any jury being intimidated before recommending that juries in scheduled offence cases should be abolished. However, when one examines the Diplock Commission’s remit one can readily see that its primary function was to find a more palatable alternative to internment without trial.
1. We were appointed to consider “what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book, otherwise than by internment, by the Executive, individuals involved in terrorist activities, particularly those who plan and direct, but do not necessarily take part in, terrorist acts; and to make recommendations.”

This should be considered in light of the failure of internment and Brigadier Frank Kitson’s arguments that the law should be used as just another weapon in the Government’s arsenal to suppress insurgency.

Simultaneously in the south of Ireland, the non-jury Special Criminal Courts were established on the same false claim that juries were also being intimidated in the south. In both its 2010 and 2013 reports on Jury Service, The Law Review Commission repeats that the:

Minister for Justice noted that the Garda Síochána had confirmed that instances of jury intimidation had occurred and that it was more surreptitious than witness intimidation.

The Commission was not overly confident in the claim that it only happens in secret. On that basis, the Commission tactfully concluded that jury intimidation was more an anecdotal claim than actually true or false.

There is no more evidence of jury intimidation today as there was in 1972. SF now support non-jury trials in the south of Ireland if the term ‘emergency’ is dropped and replaced with the word ‘exceptional’ grounds and that the law is put on a more permanent footing. SF’s endorsement of non-jury trials is now on a united Ireland basis and is nothing more than a change in its values and strategy. Jurors have not been threatened in recent times any more than they were back in 1972. 

The only thing that has changed is SF, preparing to enter government, and perhaps its endorsement of oppressive and draconian measures is an indicator that they will be as ruthless or oppressive as any Brit government if they feel they need to be.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

21 comments:

  1. To add a last comment: Many observers and grass-root supporters of SF would have expected it to want to dismantle draconian and oppressive emergency legislation and not make it permanent. Is a malleable and passive support base contributing to the creation of a monster?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you AM for publishing this piece.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is an excellent piece. Some great background detail as well which I was unaware of. Your use of the terms SFUK & SFROI suggests a fault line which I think merits further exploration elsewhere. It is close to the mark in my view. When the Stick virus gets in this is one of the outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Irish history has a habit of repeating itself Christy. I watched "A Week in Politics" on RTE1 last Sunday which SF President, Mary Lou Macdonald, was asked if "those styling themselves IRA" should be included in those going before the SCC? She answered "yes". This is similar to what de Valera did in 1932, criminalised those using the name IRA. After releasing the republican prisoners, locked up by the Cosgrave administtration in the Free State, he then criminalised the organisation just as SF will do, indeed are doing now. SF once condemned de Valera for this policy. Now they are re-enacting those same policies!

    You are correct about the SCC being in any way impartial, they are not. As for this rubbish about only certain offences will be heard by this court, do they include tax evasion? Because tax evasion, bad as it may be, hardly constitutes a threat to a jury! I refer to Thomas "Slab" Murphy whose case over tax evasion, which was the charge, went before this court. As you pointed out most civil liberties groups opposse this form of trial but not, it appears, Sinn Fein!! History doing a full circle.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  5. AM

    Yeah we have seen SFUK implementing cutbacks while in office and SFROI are opposing cutbacks while out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have indeed seen SFUK implementing cutbacks in services. But the so-called "Legislatve Council" or "Northern Ireland Assembly" are no more a government than are Greater Manchester Council, it is a joke. The real Executive is Westminster who, either by direct instruction or econimic constraints, decide the money available to the six counties. SFUK can always fall back on this as,like any local authority, are at the dictate of the real power. In one respect a little like Vichy France,an extreme example I know, so the moral to the story is: don't get into bed with the enemy in the first place as a tool of that enemy you will be. Have you learned nothing SFUK?

      Caoimhin O'Muraile

      Delete
  6. Caoimhin

    You are right and to rephrase a well known piece of Derry graffiti -'I knew SF but thank fuck they don't know me!'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Caoimhin

    The personal identity of the accused can be enough to be sent to the SCC rather than the nature of the alleged offence, that is what can make it so politically biased or prejudiced.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thats right Christy, picture it, son of a "republican dissident" before SCC
    For shoplifting!! Or, long time elderly republican before SCC for stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself!!

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was mentioned numerous times in our history books that the British ruling classes had become more Irish than the Irish themselves. .... Who ever would have thought that Sinn Fein would be buying into that type of ethos as they become even more Establishment than the Establishment itself ....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Matt Treacy comments

    I would imagine that the acceptance of the Special Court is not unconnected to the imminent trial of former SF Councillor Dowdall on charges connected to the Kinahan/Hutch feud which will be held under its auspices.

    That will be embarrassing enough for them without them being seen to be on his side regarding the court jurisdiction which he contested and lost.

    I suspect though. apart from yet another step in demonstrating that they are house-trained, that Christy is correct in believing that certain chaps would not mind having it still on the books come the glorious day.


    "I am of the belief that the defendant has posted on a forum styling itself .... "

    (Fill the gap!)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Enda

    I have suggested before that some SFUK officials have become more Finchley than Thatcher.

    Matt

    Interesting point but I doubt that was the motivation, they would just stay quiet and let that case run its course.

    I'd say your mention of being house trained might be a signal they want to convey to centre-right voters. The change of values and strategy probably long predates the Dowdall case. I see this open endorsement of draconian and oppressive laws a bigger ethical shift than supporting the PSNI.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Every time I read about Sinn Fein my thoughts instantly turn to animal farm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a telling message from SF to the rest of the establishment that SF can be trusted in power. ..............http://buncranatogether.com/home/2019/4/17/undeniable-proof-the-irish-people-were-sold-out-and-betrayed-by-r2w-unions-and-tds

    ReplyDelete
  14. The bourgeoisie, orange or/and green have nothing to fear from SF, no more than FG and FF. I am interested in their plan for a "National Health" system, single tiered. They should read Clement Atlees plans in the so-called UK which resulted in the formation of the NHS, currently clandestinely being slowly privatised. Learn and improve on Atlee and Bevans variant which was certainly progressive, but contained certain flaws. Everything, including GPs must come under the national parasol.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mick Hall comments

    What will SF do next?

    Support bringing back hanging!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mick - that is unfair. People will only be hanged in exceptional circumstances!

      Delete
    2. Use broken bottles in alleways in emergencies.

      Delete
  16. This is just one more example of Sinn Fein IRA's utterly unprincipled populism, to win more seats in the Dail. Why is anyone surprised and more importantly, why does anyone believe them? When the time is right for them, after they have won more seats in the Dail and probably coinciding with elections up North, they will do another U-turn back to their old position. Sinn Fein IRA have more in common with Boris Johnson's Tories than any other party!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People believe them because people predicted that they would do the U Turn. And out of all the U Turns they have done when have they resiled from it and gone back to the old position and be unlike the other parties? SF want to be like all the rest the party excoriated over the decades for being what they are.

      Delete
    2. Tonyol,
      feel free to call the truncated Dublin assembly the Dáil

      Delete