special criminal court/ justice?

[pony]

is it possible to get justice in the special crim or is this just a rubber stamp for the government to intern people they do not agree with.

So far this year a number of individuals have been convicted by the special crim on the word of a Garda and uncorroborated "evidence" of membership.
There are also a number of cases pending which involve the same evidence.

Is this really interment by cop?

What happened to justice or did it ever really exist in this statelet,
do we always have to follow the lead of the oppressor, just look at the Diplock system in the 6 counties and how it has served the status quo.

is there any reasoned debate or just the old Intimidation line trotted out by the apologists for this unjust and biased system.

[stringjack]

So far this year a number of individuals have been convicted by the special crim on the word of a Garda and uncorroborated "evidence" of membership.

My understanding is that (at least historically - I don't know about current practice), the Special Criminal Court has declined to convict under these circumstances if the accused denies the charge. Has that situation changed?

[Bogwarrior]

Most of those jailed in the Diplock Courts were jailed purely on the basis on "confessions" extracted after several days, sometimes seven, of exteme psychological and even physical pressure. For example 8 of the 10 hunger strikers, broke under this pressure.
Those jailed in the Special in recent years, mainly anti GFA Republicans, are jailed without even a confession, or evidence, but purely a nod and a wink from the Garda Superintendant to the Judge.
I'd go as far, as to say it's the most corrupt Court in Western Europe.
It's used to crush political dissent, and probably due to requests from the British Government.

[Bogwarrior]

So far this year a number of individuals have been convicted by the special crim on the word of a Garda and uncorroborated "evidence" of membership.

My understanding is that (at least historically - I don't know about current practice), the Special Criminal Court has declined to convict under these circumstances if the accused denies the charge. Has that situation changed?

I'm not sure that was ever the case, but it certainly isn't now.

[stringjack]

I'm not sure that was ever the case, but it certainly isn't now.

The relevant case is one from around 1975 in the Court of Criminal Appeal (DPP v. Ferguson), and from what I've read, that was the practice between 1975 and at least 1990 or so.

[georgedillon]

"My understanding is that (at least historically - I don't know about current practice), the Special Criminal Court has declined to convict under these circumstances if the accused denies the charge. "

You're wrong. Why would you say that? There have been many instances of people denying "membership" who were still locked away for years.

That's why it's pure hypocricy for Labour supporters to object to Guantanamo. We've had our own Guantanamo for decades, and the Labour crowd loved it when in power. Labour pseudo-leftists are nauseating hypocrites.
GD

[Abaddon]

I've always felt that the setting up of the special criminal court was an abuse of power by the state. Convicting a person on the word of a Garda of any rank has to be unsafe given the political nature of these cases.

It really brings in question the democracy we live in. The freedom and rights of each citizen should always be the primary concern of the state.

[stringjack]

You're wrong. Why would you say that?

Because, in about 1975, to the best of my knowledge, the Court of Criminal Appeal said...

With regard to an expression of belief, obviously the weight to be attached to it depends on a wide variety of matters - the person who expressed the belief, the circumstances in which it was expressed and, in particular, whether the expression of belief was challenged or not.

Where an accusation was challenged...

[The] value and cogency to be attached to the expression of the Chief Superintendent's belief would obviously be very much diminished. That did not take place in this case and when an expression of belief was not denied when the opportunity to deny it was there; when the accused man did not give evidence in the face of an expression of belief by the Chief Superintendent, then obviously... the cogency and weight to be attached to that expression of belief was considerably enhanced.

For those reading along at home, I'm citing Hogan and Walker, 1989. By way of support for their argument, they point us to...

...a whole series of cases where the accused was acquitted of membership of an illegal organisation by the Special Criminal Court - despite the sworn belief of a senior police officer - where he had denied that he was a member of such an organisation, see, e.g., The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Downey, The Irish Times, 5 October 1976; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Hoey, The Irish Times, 18 January 1977; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. McMahon, The Irish Times, 23 January 1980; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Hickey, The Irish Times, 2 July 1980 (where D'Arcy J. said that in view of such a conflict of evidence, the court had 'no alternative' but to acquit the accused); The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. McCallan & Doherty, The Irish Times, 11 March 1983; and The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Bolger & Ors., The Irish Times, 14 May 1983.

[Libero]

Fair play to stringjack for shooting that myth down. However, I understand that the SCC has in recent times placed a strange probative value on items that would normally carry little or no evidential value, or be rejected for reasons of irrelevance or prejudice. I'm talking about things like IRA posters, having a balaclava, etc. These could well be the possessions of a Walter Mitty character and mere possession only really suggests IRA membership, rather than honestly going to proof. It seems that the nature of the membership charge along with the rest of the Offences Against the State Acts adds up to provide a dangerous situation where anyone with republican sympathies is at serious risk of conviction. As has been pointed out though, only certain types of IRA seem to be in the firing line in recent times.

Hopefully the Special Criminal Court can be wound up as soon as possible. That said, the threat of jury intimidation is real and has been a problem in the past. It continues to be one with organised criminal gangs. Can those demanding the end of the SCC provide any solutions to this?

[Kerrygold]

having a balaclava, etc. These could well be the possessions of a Walter Mitty character and mere possession only really suggests IRA membership, rather than honestly going to proof. ?

Or an unlucky fisherman!