Irish History
Britian's Dirty War
I. OverviewII. Shoot to Kill
III. Covert Operations
IV. Target Democracy
V. Legal System
VI. British Garrison in Ireland
VII. Conflict's Deaths
VIII. Orange Myths
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM, YOU ASK?
Most Americans believe that the American legal system is probably the best in the world. It is commonly thought that the American system derived from the old British common law. Therefore, many conclude, the British system must be nearly as good and fair as our own. Sounds logical, doesn't it?
The reality is anything but logical. The two systems are actually worlds apart in both the way they operate and in the goals they seek to achieve. This is especially true in the Six Counties, or "Northern" Ireland, where special rules and procedures that could never be allowed in America have been implemented specifically to make convictions easier to secure. The British system is in many ways the complete antithesis of the American system. Yet many people wonder how such a system could exist in Britain, home of common law, John Locke and fair play. Apparently most people consider the British system to be as good as our own, if not downright superior. The truth is that, generally speaking, the British system is riddled with injustice and unfairness.
So what exactly is wrong with the British legal system? Plenty.
But the Criminal Laws of BOTH COUNTRIES are based on similar constitutions, right?
WRONG! Britain has NO constitution, and therefore criminal defendants have no constitutional rights or guarantees. Obviously, there is no British Bill of Rights either. In Britain, individuals have the right under an unwritten "understanding" to do whatever is not prohibited by law.
This is completely contrary to the very foundation of American jurisprudence. The American founding fathers insisted on a written constitution precisely because they were aware of the dangers and inherent unfairness of the British system. One of the main reasons both the American and Irish Revolutions were fought was the desire to escape from the serious injustice intrinsic to British jurisprudence.
Isn't the MAGNA CARTA the British version of our constitution?
It's not even close. Although this document received much hype in grammar school, even a casual student of history knows that it really has no legal significance whatsoever. The Magna Carta has nothing to do with constitutional safeguards and even less to do with a criminal defendant's rights. Instead, the paper merely redefined the relationship between the king and the super rich British upper class.
Neither legal system, nor any defendant, enjoys any benefits derived from the Magna Carta.
But under British COMMON LAW, don't defendants in N. Ireland have the same basic rights that American defendant have?
Not hardly. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a defendant the right to remain silent and not testify at his or her trial. Concomitant to that right is the rule that neither judge nor prosecutor may refer to a defendant's exercise of that right and tell a jury (if there is a jury) to draw an inference of guilt as a result. In fact, in America the trial judge is obligated to instruct the jury that they cannot infer guilt or draw any negative inference from the fact of a defendant's silence or refusal to testify.
The contrast between the Fifth Amendment privilege in American and a defendant's silence in Northern Ireland could not be any greater. Or more disturbing. In Northern Ireland a defendant literally has no right to silence whatsoever.
Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.
Anything he does NOT say can also be used against him in a court of law.
The British literally outlawed this fundamental right in 1988. In fact, an arrested individual cannot even remain silent during police interrogations since this silence can also be used against him or her in court.
In Britain the police need not charge a person whom they arrest. That means a man or woman can be arrested (and detained for up to 7 days) without being charged. If during that time he or she remains silent for whatever reason, that silence can be used in court as "evidence" of guilt of a crime the police later (usually much later) allege that he or she committed.
The police can detain a person for 7 days FOR NO REASON AT ALL?
That's right. The British have a unique system of 7 day detentions. It's so unique, in fact, that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that these 7 day detentions violate the European Convention. The British threw a temper tantrum and responded to the ruling by opting out (or derogating) from the Convention, thus ignoring the condemnation of the Court for violating established international legal principles. In other words, what is generally considered illegal everywhere else is considered legal in Britain and Northern Ireland.
But they need PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest and detain you for 7 days, right? And you get to SEE YOUR LAWYER, of course....don't you?
The police most definitely do NOT need probable cause to arrest someone anywhere in the north of Ireland, nor do they need to articulate any basis whatsoever for their decision to arrest. They can deny a detained person access to his or her lawyer for the first 2 days for no reason at all; but fortunately they aren't completely unfair: if they want to deny access to a lawyer for the whole 7 days they have to articulate "certain specified reasons" first. So how can detainees complain?
DESPITE ALL THAT, a defendant still can't be convicted until the jury finds the state HAS PROVED ITS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, Correct?
Actually, that's wrong on both counts.
First of all, there is NO jury. A senior British judge, Lord Diplock, was appointed in 1973 to figure out how the legal system could best aid the government's counter insurgency operations in the British Occupied Counties. Lord Diplock, well trained in the "fair play" tradition of British jurisprudence, immediately provided the solution: abolish trials by jury, surely the most basic right of all. Diplock set up one judge, no jury courts (affectionately named Diplock courts) for all politically related offenses. In Northern Ireland political activists simply have no right to a trial by their peers.
Additionally, Lord Diplock put in several hours rewriting the rules of evidence so that the defendant actually bears the burden of proving his or her innocence. The state (or the crown) does not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in complete derogation of all fundamental notions of justice.
Lord Diplock was applauded and sent home where he waited in vain to receive news of his International Jurist award, which the British seemed to think he was entitled to. It never came. "Now that's unfair," he was quoted as saying.
But I can't believe that SUCH A CIVILIZED PEOPLE would allow such a system to exist for such a long time.
Believe it! These facts are only the tip of the injustice iceberg. Following is an overview of British law. It is some of the world's most repressive legislation. And as Americans, we support and sustain it with out foreign aid policies.
Overview of British legislation and criminal procedure
Introduction
Repressive legislation has been in operation in Northern Ireland since 1921, when Britain militarily partitioned the six counties of north east Ireland from the rest of Ireland's national territory and established a pro British, or unionist , government. The "law" of Northern Ireland systematically discriminates against Catholics, and has consistently denied them access to the "one person one vote" standard in elections. It has denied them equal access to state housing, education and employment.
Since the inception of the Northern Ireland state, the British have always feared political uprisings and civil unrest. As a result, they have always maintained repressive laws to deal with the situation.
The Special Powers Act of 1922
After the creation of Northern Ireland, the British immediately passed repressive legislation to silence any and all dissension. The Special Powers Act (SPA) of 1922 gave the police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the power to outlaw political parties, political meetings and peaceful demonstrations. The SPA gave the RUC the power to arrest and detain people at random without providing any reason or basis for the arrest. Naturally, the RUC could search any premises without a warrant.
RUC personnel were almost 100% Protestant, as were the members of its civilian auxiliary, the notorious "B Specials." Together they made certain that the SPA was used exclusively to intimidate, harass and brutalize Catholics.
The SPA was so repressive that the South African government used it as a model for its "New Coercion Bill" in 1962.
Emergency Provisions Act of 1973 and Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1974
A peaceful civil rights movement began in Northern Ireland in 1968. Despite the nonviolent nature of the campaign, the British moved to literally crush the entire movement. The SPA was widely used to suppress, silence and detain those who sought only modest reforms for nationalists such as voting rights, housing and economic equality. One of the goals of the movement was to secure the repeal of the SPA. This was accomplished in 1972, but it was a purely illusory victory. The British quickly replaced it with even harsher legislation: The Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act (EPA) of 1973; and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) of 1974.
Combined, these two acts have allowed the RUC and British military to harass an entire population.
Arrest and detention
Section 18 of the EPA gives the RUC and British Army the power to stop and question any person to "ascertain identity and movements." This is used to harass people on a daily basis.
Section 11 of the EPA is the section under which most people are arrested. That's because it's so damn easy to use. The RUC may arrest any person they suspect of being a "terrorist" and detain them for at least 72 hours without charge. Of course there is no requirement that suspicion be reasonable or supported by probable cause.
This section is obviously abused and used strictly for purposes of intimidation and intelligence gathering. Most people are arrested under this section in pre- planned operations. That means the RUC literally break into their homes in the early morning and drag them out of bed. Over the past 25 years more than 60,000 people have been arrested under this section and Section 12 (1b) of the PTA. No further legal action resulted from the majority of these, thus demonstrating that these arrests are designed to collect information and harass the Irish.
Section 12 (1b) of the PTA is similar to Section 11 of the EPA but differs in that the RUC can arrest (without a warrant obviously) anyone they reasonably suspect "to be or have been involved in acts of terrorism." There is no requirement that the police name a specific incident to validate an arrest.
Search and seizure and the PTA Bill of 1988
Limitless powers of search are provided for under the Acts. Over 400,000 premises have been searched by the RUC and British Army. The searches are extensive, which means the place gets torn apart and serious damage results. Any property can be seized by use by the military. Residences, schools, industrial premises, sport grounds and farmland have been seized for use as military installations. The British government has even given itself the power to seize the homes of political opponents.
The 1988 PTA amendment allows the police to probe through and seize bank accounts and personal savings. It can be used to intimidate both groups and individuals. It also allows them to detain people in their homes while carrying out raids. This bill also removes the 50% remission for prisoners won through long and difficult prison protests. Prisoners must serve two thirds of a sentence before release.