{"id":3762,"date":"2016-11-28T08:50:34","date_gmt":"2016-11-28T08:50:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk\/?p=3762"},"modified":"2016-11-28T08:50:34","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T08:50:34","slug":"regressive-policing-jamie-bryson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk\/?p=3762","title":{"rendered":"Regressive Policing: Jamie Bryson"},"content":{"rendered":"

The below piece by Jamie Bryson first appeared in the Irish News on 25 November 2016: <\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0On 16 November the Secretary of State announced a consultation on the potential to further extend the use of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. This legislative mechanism came to fruition in 2007. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The April 2003 joint-declaration clearly gave commitments to repeal the Northern Ireland- specific parts contained within Section VII of the Terrorism Act 2000. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0And, in 2006, the Government announced they were to phase out the use of Diplock courts.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0There are two issues that arise from the provisions the Secretary of State is now reviewing. The first is whether- in the context of a ‘Fresh Start’- that such emergency provisions are still required to deal with terrorist-related offences, or whether this draconian practice actually strengthens dissident republican terrorism by bestowing upon them a ‘political’ status, rather than simply dealing with them as criminals. <\/span><\/p>\n

The second issue is how this provision has been used in cases in which no terrorist related charges have been brought, and a certificate has been issued simply on the basis of ‘soft intelligence’, which given Section 7 of the Act cannot be challenged by or within a court. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is also an argument around at which stage Article 6 of the Human Rights Act becomes engaged and whether the mode of trial falls under the protections of Article 6, namely “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Given that the prosecution alone make the decision to issue a certificate, removing one of the basic tenets of British justice- to be tried by a jury of your peers- how can this be described as an ‘independent and impartial tribunal’?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0I believe the answer to both the aforementioned issues, which are generally related but distinct points of debate, is that there is a clear and compelling case for an end to non-jury trials per se. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0If there was any jury tampering then the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has provisions to allow for the suspension of a jury trial. This should be sufficient. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the case of terrorism related charges I believe that that bestowing conflict-related provisions upon dissident republican terrorism is actually bolstering their propaganda efforts to present their actions as being politically motivated, rather than simply criminal.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Most seriously, however, is what I believe is prosecutorial overreach in terms of issuing non-jury certificates, on the basis of uncorroborated ‘soft intelligence’ that wouldn’t reach either a civil or criminal evidential threshold, for charges totally unrelated to terrorism. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0A political fresh start cannot go hand in glove with a regressive policing and justice strategy. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0Jamie Bryson <\/span><\/p>\n

\"Share\"\/<\/a>