Suspected IRA member on bail pending landmark challenge

[Johnny]

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/11/23/story231633.html

"The challenge before the Supreme Court is against the current practice whereby the Special Criminal Court accepts the opinion evidence of a Garda Chief Superintendent in membership trials that a person is a member of an illegal organisation."

The beginning of the end of the word of a Garda superintendent being enough to jail someone for 5 years? Lets hope so.

[Risteard]

The beginning of the end of the word of a Garda [Chief] superintendent being enough to jail someone for 5 years?

Seven, actually.

[Oldira]

One of the most ant-democratic laws on the statue book. For instance one could be jailed on the word of a certain Kevin Lennon. Surely that possibility alone should make the law redundant.

[Johnny]

The beginning of the end of the word of a Garda [Chief] superintendent being enough to jail someone for 5 years?

Seven, actually.

Fair enough, but you get my point.

[cain1798]

Welcome home Kenneth Fingers crossed.


From An Phoblacht, December 2004
Secret, undisclosed evidence, the word of a Garda Superintendent, and availing of their right to remain silent. These were the three factors used to convict two Dublin Sinn Féin members of IRA membership last week.

On Monday, Niall Binéad (35) from Crumlin and Kenneth Donohoe (26) from Tallaght, were each handed down four-year sentences from the Special Court in Green Street. For the last two weeks there has been a media onslaught on TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh, who knows and worked with both men in election campaigns.

Virtually every newspaper in the state ignored the implications of the judgement in terms of the judicial system in the state and created spurious headlines and articles around the allegations of spying and the spin Fine Gael's Enda Kenny and Brian Hayes and Minister McDowell were putting on it.

The men were charged solely with IRA membership and not as they had it not with running of a 'spy ring'. Even the judge admitted that the 'evidence' found in Niall's house, could have been for innocent and quite legal purposes.

But convicting the men, Justice Diarmuid O'Donovan said that the court did not doubt Special Branch Chief Superintendent Philip Kelly's evidence that he believed that each of the accused was a member of the IRA. He said this, when taken in conjunction with the accused's refusal to answer material questions when interviewed by gardaí and with the documentation found, led to his view that the men were both IRA members. His reading of secret internal Garda documents on the two men didn't of course play any part in this judgement, nor the fact that this 'evidence' wasn't available to the men's defence team.

The men have instructed their legal team to investigate the avenues for an appeal.

Following sentencing on Tuesday, Sinn Féin TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh lashed out at the lack of evidence in the men's case.

"This is a very unsafe judgement," Ó Snodaigh told An Phoblacht on Wednesday.

The Gardaí were asked to back up their accusations with files on the men. They handed these files over to the judges. The defence didn't get to see them - they could have been based on rumour, lies, anything.

"In any other jurisdiction, this would not be considered as sufficient evidence to convict somebody and it certainly would not be viewed as a legitimate way to operate a legal system. The Special Court is worse than the Diplock Courts."

The catchall Offences Against the State Act that was used to convict the men is the same law which the Special Branch routinely use to harass and arrest Sinn Féin members and election workers the length and breadth of Ireland. Ó Snodaigh said that the current case highlights "in a very real way why we need to dismantle the whole apparatus that surrounds the Special Court and the Offences Against the State Act".

During the Good Friday Agreement negotiations, an undertaking was given by the 26-County Government to review the workings of the court and the Offences Against the State Act, which have both been criticized internationally by human rights groups. The subsequent review the Hederman Report 2002 has gathered dust since gathered in the Department of Justice. Although the report did not go so far as to call for the repeal of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 - 1998 as recommended by Sinn Féin, it did include minority views calling for the abolition of provisions that allow for Superintendent's opinion as evidence; the reinstatement of the right to silence; and, most significantly a recommendation by Hederman, Binchy and Walsh to abolish the Special Court.

[qtman]

One of the most ant-democratic laws on the statue book. For instance one could be jailed on the word of a certain Kevin Lennon. Surely that possibility alone should make the law redundant.

The statute allows for the acceptance into evidence of an opinion. The Superintendent's evidence is not conclusive. The Constitution forbids that any evidence be considered conclusive, as judicial power must reside with the Court.

[bobbysands81]

One of the most ant-democratic laws on the statue book. For instance one could be jailed on the word of a certain Kevin Lennon. Surely that possibility alone should make the law redundant.

The statute allows for the acceptance into evidence of an opinion. The Superintendent's evidence is not conclusive. The Constitution forbids that any evidence be considered conclusive, as judicial power must reside with the Court.

An opinion should mean nothing though in a court of law.

Facts should be the only currency that they deal with.

[Gypsy]

Best of luck - hope he wins.

[qtman]

A far more serious issue is the fact that the AG can refer a criminal case to the Special Criminal Court (no jury) given that the AG is appointed by the Government.

I got this wrong. Its the DPP who has the power, not the AG, and the DPP is not appointed by the Government.

However, the DPP is not a member of the judiciary either, so the concern is still valid.

[Libero]

I've strongly criticised the Special Criminal Court and the laws behind it. It seems especially true in this day and age that the State no longer needs the extraordinary powers of the Offences Against the State Act and connected legislation to ensure the security and integrity of the Republic.

However I always roll my eyeballs upwards when I read or hear supporters of the IRA complaining about the setup.

They rarely saw fit to observe rules of evidence and fair procedure in how they meted out justice to others, nevermind a right of appeal.

There is plenty of documented evidence of torture playing a part in securing "convictions" before courts constituted of IRA members. And I don't think they were too hot either on the rule against hearsay, nevermind rights to know the case against oneself, cross-examination and a right to independent counsel.

Those who supported the IRA should spare us the crocodile tears over human rights and entitlement to a fair trial since they clearly have no problem with denying them to others.

And yes, I know that the State did not see itself as engaged in a war, whereas the IRA did. Thing is, values such as those mentioned in the above paragraph are not contingent on whether one side declares a war or not. And a double-hypocrisy emerges where IRA supporters excuse their actions on the basis of being in a war and yet demand that the USA and its allies abide by the highest of standards in their own particular war du jour.

Anyhow, I hope that Mr. Donohoe is successful and that the law is struck down or at least has more restrictions placed upon it.