Rather than being a prime mover in investigations, the PPS should now be considered a prime suspect. Its ludicrous decision not to prosecute the sinister persona behind online threats to the journalist Patricia Devlin and her baby has been described as disappointing and devastating by the targeted writer and podcaster.
The threat sent via Facebook three years ago included a vile statement of intent to rape her baby son.
Whether in the sordid world of paramilitaries or the sleazy world of parliamentarians, 'the job of the journalist is to say: What does it really mean?' Those intent on being at best mean to journalists, and at worst lethal to those who ask that question, will have raised their glasses to their allies in the PPS and the PSNI on learning of last month's decision.
Not only has one of the country's best investigative journalists been abandoned by the PPS but children have been thrown under the bus as a result of the decision. Fiends who threaten to rape children - in this case for the purpose of terrifying a journalist into silence - can legitimately be viewed as posing a serious paedophilic risk to the youngest in any society. Yet, for some reason the particular thug in the Devlin case can carry on unmolested to continue with his threats to molest the very young.
The PPS said that while the threats were grossly offensive and menacing, there was insufficient evidence. Since when did a direct and traceable threat to rape not become sufficient evidence? In all circumstances bar none when the authorities become aware of a serious threat of, or incitement to violence online or off, and can identify those culpable but still fail to prosecute, the salient conclusion nominates itself: the person behind the threat is a protected asset, the police preferring them on the streets for reasons best known to themselves. It might not transpire that such a person is on the books of the cops but it is the most likely explanation and will remain as such until a more plausible one presents itself.
For over nine years the PPS and PSNI have conspired between them on the basis of insufficient evidence in a bid to secure the successful prosecution of the West Belfast republican Alex McCrory until a judge, not they, concluded their evidence was not fit for purpose - and found McCrory not guilty. So determined is the PPS to be wrong, it is now considering appealing the decision in the McCrory case. Weak evidence will do just fine against him but becomes insufficient against someone who seems to have a certain use value to the police.
Following the threat, Patricia Devlin complained when her concerns for both herself and her baby were slipped into the 'nothing to see here' folder by the PSNI. Her complaint was upheld by the Police Ombudsman and the case was reinvestigated. The ombudsman was highly critical of the PSNI for having 'failed to take appropriate measures to secure the arrest of the suspect, who lived in another part of the UK.' Really inaccessible those other parts of the UK to Plod and Percy.
After I made the complaint to the Police Ombudsman, the PSNI then reinvestigated my original complaint and that individual was eventually questioned, the person they said (the PSNI) they tracked the message to.
I was told I would have to wait for a decision from the PPS. That took almost a year and a half for a decision to be made.
Now I have been told that there isn't enough evidence for a prosecution which is absolutely devastating.
I feel again that I wasn't protected, that my son hasn't been protected.
Amnesty International has criticised the PPS decision:
We’re very concerned at this decision not to bring forward a prosecution of the person believed to be behind these appalling threats to Patricia Devlin and her baby.
For three-and-half years, Patricia has sought justice for the vile threats made against her new-born baby, just one of countless threats she’s had to endure. She’s been let down repeatedly, first by an inadequate police investigation and now by a failure to prosecute.
If the case is considered a litmus test over whether Northern Ireland’s criminal justice system will protect journalists from intimidation, then we must conclude that it is failing.
It is designed to fail for journalists and succeed for assets. Everyone but the PSNI and those with whom they collude inside the PPS can see this. Now the PPS claims it is keen to meet with the victim of its own malfeasance, Ms Devlin. To what avail? It shafted her and now wants to whisper weasel words as compensation. The offer is insult added to injury.
Patricia Devlin rightly sums up the dangerous dilemma she has been left in.
The question is - is there any point in me making complaints to the police if I receive abuse again even on this scale? Because nothing seems to be done.
Patricia Devlin has shone the same forensic light on the gangsters of loyalism that Sam McBride shines on the charlatans of Stormont. Both have been subject to attempts at silencing them. Amnesty International has said that:
Threats designed to shut down press scrutiny of criminal and paramilitary activity cannot be allowed to succeed in undermining press freedom in Northern Ireland.
Whether in the sordid world of paramilitaries or the sleazy world of parliamentarians, 'the job of the journalist is to say: What does it really mean?' Those intent on being at best mean to journalists, and at worst lethal to those who ask that question, will have raised their glasses to their allies in the PPS and the PSNI on learning of last month's decision.
 |
| ⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre. |
Pure scum, that's all they are.
ReplyDeleteHas the journalist in question, or her union considered taking a civil case?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about that but it seems an option.
DeleteIf it was tracked to a single individual then there is prima facie evidence that he or she is the prime suspect if not the actual offender. It wouldn't be the first time that no prosecution has been brought against a state asset (if that is what the suspect is). However, the only thing that should matter is the two-stage prosecution test:
ReplyDelete1) The Evidential Test – the evidence which can be adduced in court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.
And 2) The Public Interest Test – prosecution is required in the public interest.
Christy - the public interest test I think could be easily satisfied. Journalists being intimidated by thugs through a threat to rape their children would very much be a public interest matter. Not because the story is interesting in itself but because the public has an interest in its journalists been free to keep it informed of what things mean. Even with a failed prosecution, it would provide a strong case for new legislation.
DeleteThe evidential test to the point of succeeding in court; in my view yes. With a direct evidential line. Conviction is not automatically guaranteed but as you point out the criterion is reasonable chance of success.
AM
ReplyDeleteIf the comments can be traced back to an individual then that would sound like pretty much a closed case. Maybe others have access to the same computer? and that could raise a reasonable doubt. I would imagine the culprit logged into some system and that is how they were traced... and whoever it is is in the untouchable class of society.