I am pleased to tell you all that my website has been completely revamped with the help of my friend Eran and can now be seen in all its glory. Because I uninstalled Joomla and replaced it with WordPress, I had to lose the content and start afresh. I had saved some of the old content, but much of it needed improvement anyway, so I took this opportunity to start with a virtually clean slate.
I have put some information about my recent books published by HarperCollins, including sample chapters. You will also find, on the website, information about the background to the books, how I came to write them, the struggles I faced (I hope I have not been too indiscreet) and the hardships of being a writer. This of course is a work in progress. In due course I will also start blogging about my political views, as I do here. Indeed at some point, sadly, this site may fall into disuse :-(
However, in the meantime, please feel free to visit my old/new site and leave comments. All comments must be approved, but I will try to do that ASAP
Friday, 8 April 2011
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Prisoners "right" to vote
I came across a blog about the so-called "right" of prisoners to vote that was so misleading in its arguments that I have to comment on it. The blog, by one David Grace (a self-styled "disgruntled liberal"), argues falsely that MP who voted against giving prisoners the vote were showing "scorn for human rights" and "sheer xenophobia."
This utterly false description of those ethical Members of Parliament who voted against giving prisoners the vote cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The main thrust of Grace's argument is that as the European Court of Human Rights derives its powers from a treaty that was signed by the British government and ratified by the British parliament, it is a matter of "honouring our commitments." He also argues that there is nothing undemocratic about accepting the judgements of the Court. But this argument fails on a number of counts.
First of all the recent parliamentary vote that Grace condemns was just as much a parliamentary vote as the one that ratified the treaty. Is Grace saying that individual MP's must vote in accordance with the Court's ruling and not in accordance with their consciences? That most certainly would be undemocratic. Parliament is as independent of the Courts as the Courts are of parliament. Grace even criticizes some MPs for being absent from the debate and vote, thereby implying that they are not even allowed to abstain, but must vote the way the Court tells them. So much for his commitment to democracy.
Secondly, the ruling that the disenfranchisement of prisoners serving custodial sentences is an infringement of the right to a free and fair election can only be described as a brazen misinterpretation of the Act. No honest judge - and indeed no honest person for that matter - could possibly believe such an interpretation.
When the judges handed down that ruling, they were breaching their oaths of office in which they swore to exercise their judicial functions "honourably, independently and impartially." (That is not to gainsay however that they have complied with the other part of the oath, to "keep secret all deliberations." So much for openness and the rights of the public!)
Grace also conveniently ignored the fact that both victims of crime and taxpayers (who are clearly affected by the decision) were not given any standing to argue their case, despite the fact that its outcome impinges upon them.
There is in fact no conflict between the view that the right to vote is indeed a right and the view that the right can be forfeited by the commission of a crime. After all a person ordinarily has the right to freedom, but that does not mean that the right cannot be forfeited for a while by the commission of a crime.
Grace's logic fares no better then he argues that disenfranchising prisoners has "no value in penal policy."He offers no evidence that granting the right has rehabilitative value.
Having said all of the above, I would also point out that even if one accepts the circuitous logic used by the criminal-friendly judiciary to reach their decision, then one arrives at an interesting conclusion regarding the question of compensation. The “honourable” judges held that the alleged right of (at least some) prisoners to vote, although nowhere stated in the European Convention on Human Rights, is a consequence of the requirement that free and fair elections be held.
But the effect of an election (unlike say health care or humane conditions) is collective rather than individual. Therefore it could be argued, applying the Court’s own logic, that the effect of denying prisoners the right to vote infringes the rights of society as a whole, to a free and fair election!
Accordingly, if one follows this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then the disenfranchisement of criminals must be held to victimize the whole of society and not just the disenfranchised criminal himself.This means that all members of society are entitled to compensation in equal measure. This conclusion may be counter-intuitive, but it is the inescapable consequence of the Court's own logic.
This utterly false description of those ethical Members of Parliament who voted against giving prisoners the vote cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The main thrust of Grace's argument is that as the European Court of Human Rights derives its powers from a treaty that was signed by the British government and ratified by the British parliament, it is a matter of "honouring our commitments." He also argues that there is nothing undemocratic about accepting the judgements of the Court. But this argument fails on a number of counts.
First of all the recent parliamentary vote that Grace condemns was just as much a parliamentary vote as the one that ratified the treaty. Is Grace saying that individual MP's must vote in accordance with the Court's ruling and not in accordance with their consciences? That most certainly would be undemocratic. Parliament is as independent of the Courts as the Courts are of parliament. Grace even criticizes some MPs for being absent from the debate and vote, thereby implying that they are not even allowed to abstain, but must vote the way the Court tells them. So much for his commitment to democracy.
Secondly, the ruling that the disenfranchisement of prisoners serving custodial sentences is an infringement of the right to a free and fair election can only be described as a brazen misinterpretation of the Act. No honest judge - and indeed no honest person for that matter - could possibly believe such an interpretation.
When the judges handed down that ruling, they were breaching their oaths of office in which they swore to exercise their judicial functions "honourably, independently and impartially." (That is not to gainsay however that they have complied with the other part of the oath, to "keep secret all deliberations." So much for openness and the rights of the public!)
Grace also conveniently ignored the fact that both victims of crime and taxpayers (who are clearly affected by the decision) were not given any standing to argue their case, despite the fact that its outcome impinges upon them.
There is in fact no conflict between the view that the right to vote is indeed a right and the view that the right can be forfeited by the commission of a crime. After all a person ordinarily has the right to freedom, but that does not mean that the right cannot be forfeited for a while by the commission of a crime.
Grace's logic fares no better then he argues that disenfranchising prisoners has "no value in penal policy."He offers no evidence that granting the right has rehabilitative value.
Having said all of the above, I would also point out that even if one accepts the circuitous logic used by the criminal-friendly judiciary to reach their decision, then one arrives at an interesting conclusion regarding the question of compensation. The “honourable” judges held that the alleged right of (at least some) prisoners to vote, although nowhere stated in the European Convention on Human Rights, is a consequence of the requirement that free and fair elections be held.
But the effect of an election (unlike say health care or humane conditions) is collective rather than individual. Therefore it could be argued, applying the Court’s own logic, that the effect of denying prisoners the right to vote infringes the rights of society as a whole, to a free and fair election!
Accordingly, if one follows this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then the disenfranchisement of criminals must be held to victimize the whole of society and not just the disenfranchised criminal himself.This means that all members of society are entitled to compensation in equal measure. This conclusion may be counter-intuitive, but it is the inescapable consequence of the Court's own logic.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Extract from my latest thriller
But the sound of Buffalo Springfield’s “For What It’s Worth” was ringing through her head, via the earphones of her iPod, as she stood by the roadside, waiting for help. She knew little of the context of the song and nothing about the closing of the Pandora’s Box nightclub or the Sunset Strip Curfew Riots. But the voice of Neil Young was haunting. It was easy to sleep through high school civics classes – even to sleepwalk through the assignments and exams. She knew a bit about the Vietnam
It stayed in her mind not as a coherent picture, but as a collection of sound bites: “We shall overcome,” “I have a dream,” “Power to the people,” “Burn, baby, burn!” The voice of anger still echoed across the decades. But it echoed faintly. A time gulf separated Bethel Bethel
But she liked the song. It had a pleasant hook that made it stick in her mind. What really sent shivers up her spine was that haunting phrase at the end of chorus, urging the young listeners to pause and assess the situation. She had no more than the merest inkling of what it meant. Whatever it was had gone down already. It doesn’t really matter, she told herself. It belonged to her grandparents’ generation anyway. She belonged to another generation, the one that was more concerned with finding a job than changing the world
Her full name was Bethel Georgia Newton and she was a mixed bag of human elements. In the looks department she was all bleached blonde and classic cheerleader figure, a carefully cultivated complexion and polished-tooth smile. Neither svelte nor buxom, a kind of perfect “in-between” for her height of five foot six; athletic, but in that soft, not overdone sort of way, with well-toned leg muscles, but not rippling ones. She was middle class and far removed from the culture of the street, yet when it came to experience of life she wasn’t entirely naïve. She might not exactly have been streetwise, but she had tasted the bitter side of life.
She stood by the roadside in her tight-fitting white t-shirt and denim shorts that showed every curve of her firm body, holding out her thumb every time a car went by. She thought it would be easy hitching a ride, with her breasts thrusting out in front, straining against her t-shirt, and the perfect ripe complexion of her thighs showing like white silk in the California
A few yards away, her car had broken down and she couldn’t even call for help because the battery of her cell phone was flat. She had made a half-hearted effort to fix the car herself, but she didn’t really have a clue when it came to car engines. So all she could do was flag down a Good Samaritan and ask them to take her to a garage where she could get proper help.
Secretly she was hoping that some good-looking man with technical skills and a cool family fortune would stop and rescue her, not just from the roadside but from the aimless drifting boredom that seemed to have engulfed her life lately. But she would settle for an elderly couple taking her down the road to a pay phone if necessary. Only she wasn’t even getting that. Life was unfair.
But then her luck changed.
An aquamarine Mercedes slowed down as it approached her. A recent model and from the up-market end of the European car industry, the owner was clearly affluent and probably young. By the time it had pulled over by the roadside she could see that the driver, in his late twenties, was a black man.
What would my parents think? she wondered with a smile at the fleeting fantasy of turning up on her liberal parents’ doorstep with this young man in tow.
Think rather than say. She knew that they’d be warm and welcoming. But she wondered if they were capable of walking the walk as well as they could talk the talk. It occurred to her that she didn’t really know her parents. And yet here she was away from home, trying to find herself.
As the young man leaned out, smiling, and asked if she needed help, she could tell from his confident voice that this someone who was going places. She was drawn to his youthful good looks and quiet, cool self-confidence and she warmed to him instantly, even if his diction betrayed the lingering traces of a background that she half suspected he was trying to conceal – or maybe just forget.
He took a look under the hood and after about a minute shook his head and said, “I’m not really all that good with engines. I’m better with people.” He won her over with that line and a disarming smile. Two minutes later she was in the Mercedes and they were rolling along down the road, getting to know each other better. Then, somewhere along the line, she noticed that he had turned off the main road.
She was about to ask where they were going when she caught a glimpse of his profile and saw his lips twist upwards into a smile. But she couldn’t tell if the smile was friendly. And as the first traces of apprehension formed into a knot in the pit of her stomach, she realized that she was too afraid to inquire further.Click here to read the rest of No Way Out
- this exciting thriller...Monday, 26 July 2010
Bulger killer gets off lightly
John Venables, one of the two murderers of two year-old James Bulger got off lightly with only a two year sentence for serious child pornography offenses. This is despite the fact that he was already out on life license ("parole" to Americans) for the Bulger murder in 1993.
The amazing thing is that he seems to assume that he will be released on completion of his sentence - or even before that. In fact, because he committed a crime while on license, he breached the terms of said license and consequently his license was revoked. That means that he can only be released if a new license is issued.
Whether that will actually happen depends on the courage of the Home Secretary. I suspect that somewhere along the line, we will be told that under a judicial interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights, the mere act of putting him on a life license (for the murder of James Bulger) instead of a short finite sentence, was itself a "violation" of his "human rights." While such a ruling would obviously be a misinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the kind of interpretation that I can see our criminal-friendly judiciary handing down before they retreat behind gated communities with their police bodyguard.
It is also the kind of argument that I can also see rolling off the tongue of some highly-paid, smooth-talking shyster - highly paid by the taxpayer that is. But if it does happen, then it is only a matter of time before he re-offends.
On the hand, Robert Thompson (the other murderer of James Bulger) is entirely different. Although he received pretty soft treatment at the de facto boarding school to which the authorities sent him, he seems to have gone straight. He is living with his girlfriend and baby and a close female blood-relative. He is quite polite - on one occasion even letting me get on the bus ahead of him despite the fact that he was already at the bus stop when I arrived there.
He doesn't know that I am onto him - although I think he suspects. But I have mixed feelings when I see him. On the one hand I believe that he is a genuinely reformed and rehabilitated character. But on the other hand none of this vitiates the fact that he has the blood of an innocent child on his hands. Moreover it was a long drawn-out vicious murder, not merely a spontaneous lashing out with fatal consequences. He saw his two-year-old victim suffering and heard him crying and pleading with him to stop: yet he carried on. His rehabilitation does nothing to ease the pain of his victim.
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Rapist gets off lightly - AGAIN
Once again, Britain's criminal-friendly judges have let a rapist off lightly. This time the rapist is an 18-year-old man who, when he was a 12-year-old boy raped a teacher. She is still receiving therapy for the psychological trauma that the dirty little scumbag inflicted on her.
The original trial judge correctly stated that the rapist posed a "grave danger." This might be because in addition to being a rapist he was also a drug junkie, a solvent addict, a pyromaniac and a violent young thug. However Lord Justice Hughes, vice-president of the criminal court of appeal, decided that eight years with an extended licence period after release, was sufficient to protect the public from this death-deserving yob. He was backed in this corrupt and depraved decision by Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice King.
But what prompted this miscarriage of justice? (And make no mistake, this reduction in the rapist's sentence IS a miscarriage of Justice.) Well it is tempting to speculate that male judges have a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude when it comes to rape. But we must also acknowledge the significant contribution of the rapists lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald QC, who used the best of his abilities to cause his rapist client to be unleashed on society as early as possible. Fitzgerald told the Appeal Court that the original sentence should never have been passed.
Now we should remember that barristers operate according to the so-called "taxi rank" principle of accepting the first "fare" that comes along. Personally I would call this the Red Light District streetwalker principle of going with the first punter that comes along. But I can understand why members of that august profession prefer to compare themselves to skilled workers who have "done the knowledge" rather than members of the oldest profession whom they more closely resemble.
In any event, no one can deny that Fitzgerald did a good job in securing an earlier release for this rapist client. Whilst it is quite likely that he was paid by the taxpayer (through the legal aid system) he was serving not the taxpayer, but his client. And if that means that other women will be raped by his client in the future - something that is highly probable - that is not Mr Fitzgerald's problem.
And what of the victim? Well it is all too easy to forget the victim in all of this. Victims are not entitled to any representation in criminal proceedings. Even victim impact statements are largely ignored by the judges and any change in this policy has been opposed by those who support the criminals. The only "redress" that the law purports to allow the victim is the right to bring a civil lawsuit for financial compensation. But no matter how much money is awarded, if the rapist hasn't got the money (or is able to conceal it) he will not be obliged to pay it. or if he pays it will be a couple of quid a week. And then he can duck the debt by having himself declared bankrupt.
Is it surprising then that in another case going before the courts involves a 15-year-old girl (then 14) accused murdering a man she accused of raping her? As a rape victim says to the man who raped her many years later in my latest thriller No Way Out You think the pain of your victims ebbs into oblivion just because you turned your life around. You think it’s that easy? Don’t you know that for the victims the pain never goes away!"
The answer is: it doesn't. So may be it's time to inflict some pain on the rapists. As a modest first step, if anyone knows the identity of the rapist in this case, would they please reveal it on a website hosted outside the United Kingdom.
The original trial judge correctly stated that the rapist posed a "grave danger." This might be because in addition to being a rapist he was also a drug junkie, a solvent addict, a pyromaniac and a violent young thug. However Lord Justice Hughes, vice-president of the criminal court of appeal, decided that eight years with an extended licence period after release, was sufficient to protect the public from this death-deserving yob. He was backed in this corrupt and depraved decision by Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice King.
But what prompted this miscarriage of justice? (And make no mistake, this reduction in the rapist's sentence IS a miscarriage of Justice.) Well it is tempting to speculate that male judges have a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude when it comes to rape. But we must also acknowledge the significant contribution of the rapists lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald QC, who used the best of his abilities to cause his rapist client to be unleashed on society as early as possible. Fitzgerald told the Appeal Court that the original sentence should never have been passed.
Now we should remember that barristers operate according to the so-called "taxi rank" principle of accepting the first "fare" that comes along. Personally I would call this the Red Light District streetwalker principle of going with the first punter that comes along. But I can understand why members of that august profession prefer to compare themselves to skilled workers who have "done the knowledge" rather than members of the oldest profession whom they more closely resemble.
In any event, no one can deny that Fitzgerald did a good job in securing an earlier release for this rapist client. Whilst it is quite likely that he was paid by the taxpayer (through the legal aid system) he was serving not the taxpayer, but his client. And if that means that other women will be raped by his client in the future - something that is highly probable - that is not Mr Fitzgerald's problem.
And what of the victim? Well it is all too easy to forget the victim in all of this. Victims are not entitled to any representation in criminal proceedings. Even victim impact statements are largely ignored by the judges and any change in this policy has been opposed by those who support the criminals. The only "redress" that the law purports to allow the victim is the right to bring a civil lawsuit for financial compensation. But no matter how much money is awarded, if the rapist hasn't got the money (or is able to conceal it) he will not be obliged to pay it. or if he pays it will be a couple of quid a week. And then he can duck the debt by having himself declared bankrupt.
Is it surprising then that in another case going before the courts involves a 15-year-old girl (then 14) accused murdering a man she accused of raping her? As a rape victim says to the man who raped her many years later in my latest thriller No Way Out You think the pain of your victims ebbs into oblivion just because you turned your life around. You think it’s that easy? Don’t you know that for the victims the pain never goes away!"
The answer is: it doesn't. So may be it's time to inflict some pain on the rapists. As a modest first step, if anyone knows the identity of the rapist in this case, would they please reveal it on a website hosted outside the United Kingdom.
Monday, 21 June 2010
Obama forces Union Carbide to pay proper compensation
In the face of allegations of double standards over the BP tragedy, US President Barak Obama has decided to use his executive powers to force Dow Chemical (owners of Union Carbide) to pay out a "massive but fair" settlement to the victims of the Bhopal disaster in India.
In 1984, a release of poison gas and chemicals from the Union Carbide works in India killed 15,000 Indians (dots, not feathers) and exposed a further 500,000 to toxic chemicals. Union Carbide, and their parent company Dow Chemical, have consistently resisted efforts to bring a class action suit - with the connivance of the American courts as well as successive administrations. They have also protected CEO Warren Anderson and other key Union Carbide officials from extradition for manslaughter, despite the fact that the US claims the right to extradite (and even kidnap) people who commit crimes against citizens of the United States.
However, in the face of criticism over double standards in relation to BP, US President Barak Obama has decided to use his executive powers to force Dow Chemical to make a huge payout - running into "many billions" - to the victims of the Bhopal disaster. He has also issued an executive order for the extradition to Warren Anderson and eight other key Union Carbide officials to India to face charges of manslaughter.
President Obama's decision, which has not yet been officially announced, was revealed by Italian investigative journalist Satira Scrivnera, who obtained copies of the confidential document from a "highly placed White House source."
According to the documents, the government plans to have the Union Carbide executives arrested by Federal Marshalls and to freeze the Dow Chemical bank account at the same time. The White House has declined to comment but the inside mole quoted President Obama off the record as saying "If I can kick one butt, I can kick two" - an apparent paraphrase of Sylvia Plath.
The above article was satiric...
In 1984, a release of poison gas and chemicals from the Union Carbide works in India killed 15,000 Indians (dots, not feathers) and exposed a further 500,000 to toxic chemicals. Union Carbide, and their parent company Dow Chemical, have consistently resisted efforts to bring a class action suit - with the connivance of the American courts as well as successive administrations. They have also protected CEO Warren Anderson and other key Union Carbide officials from extradition for manslaughter, despite the fact that the US claims the right to extradite (and even kidnap) people who commit crimes against citizens of the United States.
However, in the face of criticism over double standards in relation to BP, US President Barak Obama has decided to use his executive powers to force Dow Chemical to make a huge payout - running into "many billions" - to the victims of the Bhopal disaster. He has also issued an executive order for the extradition to Warren Anderson and eight other key Union Carbide officials to India to face charges of manslaughter.
President Obama's decision, which has not yet been officially announced, was revealed by Italian investigative journalist Satira Scrivnera, who obtained copies of the confidential document from a "highly placed White House source."
According to the documents, the government plans to have the Union Carbide executives arrested by Federal Marshalls and to freeze the Dow Chemical bank account at the same time. The White House has declined to comment but the inside mole quoted President Obama off the record as saying "If I can kick one butt, I can kick two" - an apparent paraphrase of Sylvia Plath.
The above article was satiric...
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Bloody Sunday Justice - at last
Yesterday, the Saville Report on the Bloody Sunday massacre was published. It confirmed what was known all along: that British soldiers fired on unarmed, peaceful demonstrators, murdering 14 of them - 13 that day, with one of the wounded dying later.
The background to the story was that a peaceful but "illegal" civil rights demonstration was held by Roman Catholics in the Bogside area of Derry (Northern Ireland) on the 30th of January, 1972. Members of the British Paratroop Regiment (who in fairness, it must be remembered, had been sent there initially to protect the Catholics from Unionist violence) opened fire, claiming that they had been fired upon first.
An inquiry by a tribunal led by Lord Chief Justice Widgery and completed in haste (reporting their findings on April 19, 1972), stated that the actions of some of the soldiers "bordered on reckless" but also concluded that three of the dead had been armed and firing weapons. This conclusion was based on the fact that they were found to have lead residue on their hands, implying that they had handled bullets (although the cartridges of bullets are made of brass) and nail bombs "found" on one of the deceased.
No explosives residue was found on any of the deceased and one of those who had such residue was known to work with lead solder in his normal employment. Moreover, it was known that in a number of cases, the dead were lifted into waiting vehicles by soldiers - who had themselves been firing guns. It was pointed out, even at the time, that this alone could explain the lead residue on the hands. But Widgery rejected this, saying that he didn't think it was very likely. There was just one problem: Widgery hadn't bothered to take any scientific evidence on the subject. Any competent forensic scientist could have told him that lead residue could indeed be transferred in this way.
It was also pointed out that the nail bombs supposedly found on one of the bodies could easily have been planted there. Certainly there was no evidence that any such bombs had been detonated. Furthermore no soldier was either killed or injured and no traces of any bullets or cartridges from any guns other than those of the soldiers were found. Nor did anyone other than some of the soldiers claim to have seen any of the demonstrators firing guns.
Thus it was clear even at the time that all the victims were innocent. This means that Lord Widgery's report was not only wrong: it was brazenly dishonest. A coroner's inquest was also held at the time and the Coroner (retired British Army Major Hubert O'Neill,) required the jury to return open verdicts because of the overall uncertainty in any particular case. (NB Although the inquest covered all the deaths, each fatality required a separate verdict.) However, having required the jury to return open verdicts on those narrow technical grounds, the coroner then indicated his own overview of the actions of the soldiers as a whole when he stated that: " I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder. It was murder."
All of this leads us to the present and what should be done about it 38 years later. Some would say forgive and forget. Others would point out that there is no statute of limitations on murder. It has been pointed out that the Good Friday Agreement granted a de facto amnesty for members of "paramilitary" organizations that observed the ceasefire unequivocally. Indeed Sinn Fein co-leader Gerry Adams made it clear in an interview while the agreement was being negotiated that failure to agree to early release of the "paramilitaries" was a deal breaker.
Now it is to the credit of the British government, that even whilst acceding to this thoroughly unreasonable demand (that violated the rights of the victims of terrorism), they never sought to introduce a similar provision for soldiers. However, notwithstanding this omission, the question is should such a reciprocal arrangement be deemed to apply?
I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it is offensive that those who killed the innocent should escape justice. On the other hand it is equally offensive that one party to the agreement should be denied the benefits that are granted to the other. Some would say that a government and a genuine army should be held to a higher standard than terrorists masquerading as soldiers. And this is certainly true. But it is not something that Gerry Adams can say - at least not legitimately.
But perhaps there is a remedy. It is now becomingly increasingly clear that some of the soldiers lied to the Widgery Tribunal and/or the coroner. Could these soldiers not be prosecuted for Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice (both of which carry maximum sentences of 10 years imprisonment)? Indeed if it can be proven that any of them are guilty of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, they could be imprisoned for Life!
This could be used as a means for squaring the circle and ensuring that those who wronged the honoured and innocent dead - first by killing them and then by lying about them over their graves - are brought to justice. At the same time it would honour the principle of reciprocity and deliver a powerful message to Gerry Adams and his cohorts that they have made their bed and must now lie in it.
The background to the story was that a peaceful but "illegal" civil rights demonstration was held by Roman Catholics in the Bogside area of Derry (Northern Ireland) on the 30th of January, 1972. Members of the British Paratroop Regiment (who in fairness, it must be remembered, had been sent there initially to protect the Catholics from Unionist violence) opened fire, claiming that they had been fired upon first.
An inquiry by a tribunal led by Lord Chief Justice Widgery and completed in haste (reporting their findings on April 19, 1972), stated that the actions of some of the soldiers "bordered on reckless" but also concluded that three of the dead had been armed and firing weapons. This conclusion was based on the fact that they were found to have lead residue on their hands, implying that they had handled bullets (although the cartridges of bullets are made of brass) and nail bombs "found" on one of the deceased.
No explosives residue was found on any of the deceased and one of those who had such residue was known to work with lead solder in his normal employment. Moreover, it was known that in a number of cases, the dead were lifted into waiting vehicles by soldiers - who had themselves been firing guns. It was pointed out, even at the time, that this alone could explain the lead residue on the hands. But Widgery rejected this, saying that he didn't think it was very likely. There was just one problem: Widgery hadn't bothered to take any scientific evidence on the subject. Any competent forensic scientist could have told him that lead residue could indeed be transferred in this way.
It was also pointed out that the nail bombs supposedly found on one of the bodies could easily have been planted there. Certainly there was no evidence that any such bombs had been detonated. Furthermore no soldier was either killed or injured and no traces of any bullets or cartridges from any guns other than those of the soldiers were found. Nor did anyone other than some of the soldiers claim to have seen any of the demonstrators firing guns.
Thus it was clear even at the time that all the victims were innocent. This means that Lord Widgery's report was not only wrong: it was brazenly dishonest. A coroner's inquest was also held at the time and the Coroner (retired British Army Major Hubert O'Neill,) required the jury to return open verdicts because of the overall uncertainty in any particular case. (NB Although the inquest covered all the deaths, each fatality required a separate verdict.) However, having required the jury to return open verdicts on those narrow technical grounds, the coroner then indicated his own overview of the actions of the soldiers as a whole when he stated that: " I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder. It was murder."
All of this leads us to the present and what should be done about it 38 years later. Some would say forgive and forget. Others would point out that there is no statute of limitations on murder. It has been pointed out that the Good Friday Agreement granted a de facto amnesty for members of "paramilitary" organizations that observed the ceasefire unequivocally. Indeed Sinn Fein co-leader Gerry Adams made it clear in an interview while the agreement was being negotiated that failure to agree to early release of the "paramilitaries" was a deal breaker.
Now it is to the credit of the British government, that even whilst acceding to this thoroughly unreasonable demand (that violated the rights of the victims of terrorism), they never sought to introduce a similar provision for soldiers. However, notwithstanding this omission, the question is should such a reciprocal arrangement be deemed to apply?
I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it is offensive that those who killed the innocent should escape justice. On the other hand it is equally offensive that one party to the agreement should be denied the benefits that are granted to the other. Some would say that a government and a genuine army should be held to a higher standard than terrorists masquerading as soldiers. And this is certainly true. But it is not something that Gerry Adams can say - at least not legitimately.
But perhaps there is a remedy. It is now becomingly increasingly clear that some of the soldiers lied to the Widgery Tribunal and/or the coroner. Could these soldiers not be prosecuted for Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice (both of which carry maximum sentences of 10 years imprisonment)? Indeed if it can be proven that any of them are guilty of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, they could be imprisoned for Life!
This could be used as a means for squaring the circle and ensuring that those who wronged the honoured and innocent dead - first by killing them and then by lying about them over their graves - are brought to justice. At the same time it would honour the principle of reciprocity and deliver a powerful message to Gerry Adams and his cohorts that they have made their bed and must now lie in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)