Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Christy Walsh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christy Walsh. Show all posts
Christy Walsh ✍ UK Intelligence and Security Forces colluded with Loyalists in the importation of weapons into Northern Ireland.

Some of these weapons were used to kill at least 132 people in what are collectively referred to as the mid-Ulster series of murder cases. The murders were carried out by Loyalist paramilitaries in collusion with British intelligence and security agencies. The Courts have directed that, of the 132 murders, 3 mid-Ulster cases should progress as the Vanguard cases: (these involve the murders of Mr Brian Frizzell, Mr Seamus Dillon and Messrs. Kevin and Jack McKearney). The Courts also directed the Vanguard legal representatives to co-operate and share evidence with the non-Vanguard Plaintiffs, as per Patrick Frizzell -v- PSNI [2019] NIQB 90.

This article will address the unlawful use of closed material procedures (CMPs) to conceal evidence of State collusion in the murders. The term ‘unlawful’ is used because the Justice and Security Act 2013 (JSA) specifically prohibits the use of CMPs in non-criminal cases where their outcome could result in criminal prosecutions. Secrecy surrounds the identity of who applied for 2 CMP certificates to withhold crucial evidence (material) from the Vanguard and non-Vanguard Plaintiffs in the murder cases. On 26th January 2023 the Court granted 2 CMP applications, RE: Frizzell (2017 No. 44663) and Lundy (2016 No. 27847). Mr Brian Frizzell was murdered by Loyalist on 28th March 1991 and Mr Alan Lundy was murdered on 1st May 1993.

CMPs are specifically intended to conceal the work of State intelligence and security agencies. The CMPs let the State conceal relevant evidence and exclude members of the public from all or part of legal proceedings in the alleged interest of national security. The exclusion also applies to the legal representatives of the excluded party. A government liaison lawyer, known as ‘Special Advocates (SA)’ is instructed to liaise with the excluded parties and their legal representatives to provide the ‘gist’ of information, only in so far as their instructing State client allows them to.

Criminal Cause in non-Criminal Proceedings

Both Section 6 of the JSA, and Rule 82.13(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), require that the evidence must “be damaging to the interests of national security”, and “The relevant person” must apply for the CMP. Paragraph 7 of the Court’s judgment does not identify who applied for both CMPs? CMP certificates are not available in all civil cases as per Section 6(11) of the JSA, “relevant civil proceedings means any proceedings (other than proceedings in a criminal cause or matter).” This means no Government Department; ie. Department of Justice (DoJ) or Ministry of Defence (MoD); or state agencies - Prosecution or Police Services, could apply for CMPs in the mid-Ulster series of murder cases because they all involve ‘criminal cause’ allegations of collusion in murder. If the State cannot apply for CMPs in non-criminal cases involving criminal cause, then who can?

A ‘criminal cause or matter’ includes non-criminal proceedings, where an ancillary outcome can lead to criminal proceedings. ‘Criminal cause or matters’ are determined by a 2 part test[1]; first, could the underlying civil proceedings afterwards place an individual in jeopardy of criminal proceedings or punishment? Second, is an investigation and potential prosecution a possible and foreseeable outcome of the non-criminal proceedings? Someone must be in possible and foreseeable jeopardy[2] of criminal investigation and prosecution as a direct outcome of the non-criminal proceedings. In the mid-Ulster cases it is alleged that members of the security forces colluded in numerous murders carried out by Loyalists, hence, criminal proceedings could reasonably follow the non-criminal proceedings. Section 6(11) of the JSA would make any CMPs issued to deny the mid-Ulster Plaintiffs access to crucial evidence of collusion unlawful.

Note: The Court’s recent Judgment in the inquest into the Loyalist murder of Mr Sean Brown on 19th May 1997 relates to non-criminal proceedings that could result in criminal proceedings. In Mr Brown’s case, the MoD, the Security Service and PSNI made applications to withhold evidence “which would otherwise fall to be disclosed during the inquest on the grounds of public interest immunity” (PII)[3]. They applied for PIIs and not CMPs. There is an important distinction why PIIs are different; evidence not disclosed to Mr Brown’s representatives in the non-criminal proceedings can also not be used by the State in those same proceedings. 

The use of PIIs in non-criminal proceedings do not undermine the integrity of any ancillary criminal proceedings that might result from Mr Brown’s inquest if there is evidence the security forces colluded with his killers. Whereas, the withheld evidence in CMP non-criminal proceedings is used by the State without the excluded party, or their lawyers, knowing what that evidence is. The use of CMPs would undermine the integrity of ancillary criminal proceedings and the proper administration of justice where PIIs do not. The State and its agencies show awareness that they could only lawfully apply for PIIs in Mr Brown non-criminal proceedings. In fact, the State has applied for PIIs in another mid-Ulster case because there is the potential of criminal proceedings following the outcome. But who applied for the 2 CMPs in the mid-Ulster murder cases if the State did not?

On 26th January 2023, Mr Justice Humphries delivered a closed judgment on the foot of an application for 2 CMPs: Re: Frizzell (2016 No. 44663) and Lundy (2016 No. 37847) (Appendix, page 37). The gateway to CMPs is through the JSA, Section 6, and Section 6(11)(d) defines ‘sensitive material’ as “material the disclosure of which would be damaging to the interests of national security.”. In the open Frizzell/Lundy Judgments[4] (9th Oct 2023) the Court does not identify who applied for the CMPs but only that it granted the requests (Paragraph 7). The CMPs give the appearance of a legitimate legal framework to withhold crucial evidence of state collusion in the mid-Ulster series of murder cases but that does not make them lawful. Once the CMPs were granted, the Court explains how the State agencies, and their 3 Loyalist agents[5], only then applied “under section 8 of JSA, to the court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the court, the special advocates and the Secretary of State” (Paragraph 9). But who applied for and obtained the original 2 CMP certificates referenced in paragraph 7? And why is their identity secret? The identity of the applicant of CMPs is not secret because it is the State or an agency of the state making the application in the interests of national security. But in the mid-Ulster cases it is secret without explanation or provision set out in the JSA.

The open Judgment does not mention the roles played by the Loyalist/State Agents, Alan Oliver; Anthony McNeill, and; Thomas Harper? Probably because it involves State collusion with them. The unlawful use of CMPs in the mid-Ulster cases means the Court, to satisfy the requirement of section 6(11)(d) of the JSA 2013, need only be persuaded to accept the rational that collusion with these men was an integral necessary evil in the interests of national security. That is, logically, the argument probably made in the closed proceedings the Plaintiffs and their lawyers were excluded from. The CMPs go directly to State collusion and are matters of criminal cause for which no CMP is lawfully available.

The unlawful use of CMPs means there is no way of knowing if the same closed material or named Loyalists are common throughout all 132 murder cases? Or if the secret evidence reveals more avenues, or individuals, used to arm, organize or direct the Loyalist killers responsible for the murders. The State or its agents cannot lawfully obtain CMPs in the mid-Ulster series of murder cases because they involve ‘criminal cause’ allegations of collusion in murder. Whose identity is being protected in paragraph 7 of the Judgment? Did that person apply for the CMPs to prevent the Plaintiffs from seeing crucial evidence in the murders of their loved ones?

References

[1] Amand v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1943] A.C. 147 (1942), p.156.

[2] Re McGuinness No 1 [2020] UKSC 6, paras.42-45, 48-49, 93.

[3] Brown’s Application [2024] NI Coroner 18, 4th March 2024.

[4] https://www.judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/2023-nikb-97.

[5] Alan Oliver; Anthony McNeill, and; Thomas Harper.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Is The Withholding Of Crucial Evidence In The Mid-Ulster Series Of Murder Cases Lawful?

Christy Walsh ðŸ—ž writing to the Irish Times on the Family and care referendum.

Dear Editor,

Re: the letter from 13 Constitutional and Family lawyers (2 March). In brief, they are wrong.

The term 'durable relationship' is inclusive and not exclusive. A YES vote would legalise polygamy. The proposed change of Article 41.1.1 reads: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships . . . "

If the proposed change is adopted, and if challenged, the Courts could only consider if polygamous relationships (including marriages) can be 'durable relationships' as would then be permitted under the amended Constitutional Article.

It is wrong and misleading if the legal professionals who signed the letter are asserting that polygamous relationships cannot be durable, including within marriages.

Yours sincerely

John Christopher Walsh

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

They Are Wrong

Christy Walsh ✍ weighs up developments in the Lisa Smith case.  

Background on Smith

In 2015, Irish national, Lisa Smith traveled to Syria after terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called on Muslims to travel to that country. Mr Justice Hunt, delivering verdict against Smith, said that she went to Syria with her "eyes wide open" having watched videos of ISIS atrocities and having taken part in online discussions about ISIS with jihadis from Germany, Australia, America and parts of the Middle East.

Smith claims she and her fellow ISIS members lived normal lives! There was nothing normal about a family being dragged from their homes, beheaded, raped, sold into slavery or forced to convert to Islam so Smith could play happy housewife for the caliphate. She and her new ‘hubby’, assumed the lives of their victims by looting or plundering their homes, beds, chairs, cars, TVs or anything else of value or of use to them. As repulsive a person Smith is, we must face up to the fact, as do other nations, that one of our own left our shores to participate in genocide and crimes against humanity only to return to their native homes as war criminals. Smith embraced ISIS scorched earth genocidal atrocities so much that she even warned her own family to convert to Islam before it was too late. But now she wants to visit them; ISIS failed - no harm done and the least said the better…WTF??

As a nation, we have a responsibility to the victims of war crimes when Irish nationals are responsible. Section 9(3) of the International Criminal Court Act 2006 made it possible for an Irish citizen to be tried in an Irish Court rather than at the International Crimninal Court at the Hague (see article[1]). Section 8 involves offences ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (in Smith’s case, at minimum looting or providing a supporting role) committed anywhere in the world. Section 12(1) states that:

An Irish national who does an act outside the State that, if done within it, would constitute an ICC offence or an offence under section 11(1) is guilty of that offence and liable to the penalty provided for it.

Unfortunately, the Irish prosecution services failed the victims of ISIS by taking a more passive and lenient path to prosecution. This was against the expressed wishes of the victims of ISIS who had called on nations not to relabel genocide and war crimes as lesser offences. Severity of the sentence was not so much the issue but the descriptive accuracy of the criminal charges were.
 
Exclusion Order

On 7th May 2021 Smith successfully appealed a British Home Office-issued exclusion order against her on the grounds of public security. Smith had travelled to Syria to join ISIS/Daesh. But after its defeat she was brought back to Ireland on humanitarian grounds for the welfare of her daughter. Smith agrees with the principle that the British may deny individuals entry into the UK in the interests of public safety. However, Smith was afforded the oppurtunity to apply for British citizenship: “She is therefore entitled to be registered as a British citizen if she applies for registration.”[2] The SoS suggested that she would not have issued an exclusion order against a British citizen.[3] Smith has rejected British citizenship. Smith’s father is an Irish citizen born in Belfast ‘without any restriction on his period of residence’. The Judges asserted that “her father was a dual citizen –he was British whether he wanted to be or not and did not renounce it.” Many Irish citizens in the 6 counties do not recognise British citizenship whether the British like it or not.

Nevertheless, the exclusion order was incorrectly issued under regulation 23(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, 2016 SI No 1052 (‘the EEA Regulations’). The Decision was certified under regulation 38(2)(a) of the EEA Regulations. Confusingly, Smith seems to argue dual citizenship (probably more an error on her lawyers part):

The decision challenged is unlawful and/or ultra vires because the Appellant is a dual British and Irish citizen (or in the alternative, is entitled to be treated as one) by reason of article 14 of the ECHR read in conjunction with article 8.
Given Smiths nationality, the Common Travel Area (CTA) between the UK and Ireland was at issue and not European Economic Area. It is confusing why Smiths lawyers argued that Smith ought to be accredited with dual citizenship when she rejected the offer to apply for British citizenship? Smith’s Irish citizenship alone is sufficient under international law and specifically the GFA. Under parity of esteem, non-British citizens, specifically, Irish citizens can live or travel throughout the 6 counties. Smith's lawyers claimed it was discriminatory to require her to apply for British nationality and take an oath of allegiance because it was "not consistent with her right to self-identify as Irish, a right safeguarded by the Good Friday Agreement[4]". In the case of Caoimhe Ní Chuinneagain, Mr Justice Scoffield accepted that under the GFA.

accept that, as a matter of international law, this recognises a right to identify oneself and be accepted as Irish only; and, relatedly, that it entails a right to be accepted by each Government which was a party to the agreement (including the UK Government) as British or Irish only… It does confer a right to be accepted as Irish only as she so chooses.[5]

All countries have a right to exclude non-nationals. Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives the Secretary of State power to deprive a person of British citizenship if satisfied that would be conducive to the public good and satisfied that deprivation will not make that person stateless (section 40(4)). Under international law a person cannot be made stateless through loss of citizenship unless the person holds dual citizenship to another country. Had Smith opted to register as a British citizen then she likely would then have been deprived her of it. For example, Shamima Begum had dual citizenship, the UK and Bangladesh. Now she only has her Bangladesh citizenship. The UK revoked her British citizenship on account that her parents were born in Bangladesh. The reverse is true in Smith’s case - her father was born and lives in Belfast and he is an Irish citizen as is she. Neither appear to wish to identify as British as is their right.

The EU & the European Economic Area are Irrelevant

In 1922, the British and Irish authorities agreed to a Common Travel Area (CTA) between the UK and Ireland that includes more than the basic right to travel freely between both countries. For example, under Section 32 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 Irish citizens with criminal records are treated in similar terms as UK citizens: Section 32 “provides as follows: “foreign criminal” means a person–(a) who is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.” The recent Court also acknowlegded that “the deportation of Irish nationals is significantly more restrictive than the approach she takes to the deportation of other foreign national prisoners.”[6] Even in proceedings involving the NI Protocol[7] it was observed that the Protocol safeguards “the preservation of the UK/Ireland Common Travel Area (“CTA”), a post – partition arrangement of longstanding,” Hence, the CTA is separate from and not dependant upon EU membership therefore arguments around the EEA are void ab intitio.

However, exclusion orders are nothing new as they could be issued against individuals from either jurisdiction. For example, numerous exclusion orders were issued during Operation Banner when suspected members of the Republican Movement were banned from travelling to Great Britain from either the north or south of Ireland. International law and treaties since 1922 created complications for exclusion orders, for example, Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence....). This means that where either government might like to expel a parent, the rights of other family members, especially children, must be considered.
 
Anti-Irish Bias of Judges

The Judges in Smith’s case seem to be prejudiced by Smith’s refusal to identify as British and:

In those circumstances, it does not seem to me disproportionate to treat her in accordance with her chosen status as a foreign national.

The Court improperly disapproved of her to have the right to freely enter the UK as a British citizen without being willing to acquire that status:

Ms Smith cannot have it both ways. If she wishes to be treated as a British citizen she must accept the obligations that go with that status, including allegiance to the crown, which is owed by those who are British from birth just as much as by those who acquire nationality subsequently.

In their written judgment, the Judges appear to be more consumed with Smith’s rejection of British citizenship than any security risk she poses. The judges hearing her case did not have proper regard to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the right of Irish people to be recognised only as an Irish citizens throughout the 32 counties. The Judges also failed to consider the cultural and social history of Ireland and the free movement of Irish citizens throughout the Irish mainland and its off shore islands. Irish citizen’s intersect the border daily without ever traveling to Great Britain. I imagine, but it is not clearly stated, that Smiths only intention is to travel into the 6 counties but never to venture into Great Britain.

Oath of Allegiance to the Crown

The Judges views about Smith taking the oath of allegiance to the Crown are out of order and not supported in law. Both judges ought to have been aware of the Oaths And Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, which resulted in the amendment of existing legislation in Northern Ireland to remove the requirment of swearing an oath of allegiance or declarations to the Crown. In May 2000, 2 senior barristors won the right to not take the oath of allegience to the crown and to be identified as senior counsel(SC) and not queens counsel(QC)[8]. One barrister became Lord Justice Treacy.
 
Conclusion

Nothing redeems Smith or ISIS for the atrocities they committed or supported in Syria. The Brits are not unreasonable for wishing to exclude her from the UK but their arguments for excluding her from the 6 counties are fundamentally flawed. The British Court handling of Smith’s case reveals the underlying prejudice and bias the British judges have for Ireland and the Irish. They show no sensitivity or respect for the indigenious Irish living in the occupied 6 counties. Or their right to identify as Irish. Their treatment of Smith is an exercise in contempt for the GFA and any idea of the 6 counties being a ‘shared space. The judges seem to have arrived at their decision against Smith primarily because she did not identify as British, she did not take up the suggestion that she register as British and she would not pledge any oath of allegiance to the crown. None of these are proper considerations but tend to be more oppresive and coercive to any Irish person who identifies as Irish and not British.

[1] Lisa Smith: Irish ISIS War Criminal.
[2] Secretary of State for the Home Department v Lisa Smith [2021] NIQB 79, at para 15. 
[3] ibid, para 50.
[4] UK government can impose entry ban on Lisa Smith, court rules, Irish Examiner, 5 Apr, 2023 .
[5] Caoimhe Ní Chuinneagain [2021] NIQB 79, at paras 21 &27.
[6] ibid, para 96.
[7] James Hugh Allister, Benyamin Naeem Habib, Steve Aiken, the Rt Hon. Arlene Isobel Foster, Baroness Catharine Hoey of Lylehill and Rathlin and William David, the Rt Hon. Baron Trimble of lisnagarvey v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. And the case of Clifford Peeples v (1) The Prime Minister (2) Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (3) Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2022] NICA 15m at at para. 324.
[8] Barristers win case on declaration to queen.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Lisa Smith ⚖ Citizenship Of A War Criminal And Judicial Anti-Irish Prejudice

Christy Walsh ✍ On 6th March, Colonel Richards Kemp tweeted about the summary execution of 3 unarmed IRA volunteers in Gibraltar. I quote:

Operation Flavius. Today, 1988, 3 IRA terrorists intent on mass murder of British forces in Gibraltar were killed by the SAS with back up from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regt. The Israeli intelligence service Mossad played a key role in intelligence & surveillance.

The next day he had an article published in The Daily Telegraph condemning the Russians for a similar war crime of the summary execution of an unarmed Ukrainian soldier- who was also engaged in violent resistent to the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine. Kemp had this to say of the Russian war crime:

A shocking video has been circulating in the last few days that appears to show a Ukrainian prisoner of war being gunned down by his Russian captors as he utters what he knows are the last words he will ever say: ‘Slava Ukraini’ – glory to Ukraine. This image of heroic defiance against appalling brutality should send a chilling message to Vladimir Putin after a year of butchery in Ukraine: you can murder and torture us all you like, but you cannot defeat our will to fight.

The only meaningful difference between these summary executions is The Rome Statute, which was adopted on 17th July 1998. The Rome Statute created the International Criminal Court (ICC) where war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity can be prosecuted. Proof of that fact has just arisen, as of 19th March 2023, an Australian SAS Soldier has been charged with the war crime of “shooting dead a prone Afghan man, who is lying with his hands up, in a wheat field in southern Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province.”[1]

It should never be forgotten that Brit Colonels like Kemp invented narrative warfare to excuse the atrocities they and their soldiers have committed around the world. Did you know that during the Brits occupation of places like Malaysia and Kenya they routinely severed the heads and hands of their victims?

In blazing heat or sweltering humidity they lugged the dead weight of sacks over open plains or through impenetrable jungles containing numerous hands and decapitated heads back to the villages. This is where narrative warfare kicks in - the heads were stuck on spikes and villagers rounded up, a terror tactic and war crime? Not according to Kemp’s predecessors: it was on the auspices to see if the villagers could identify the deceased. The severed hands were necessary for fingerprinting purposes back at the barrack. Photographs of jungle patrols back then confirm they had cameras; they could have photographed the corpses and saved days of marching while lugging decomposing human remains about with them. And a simple ink pad and some paper would have been a much lighter and civilised means of taking fingerprints.

On a more progressive note: The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has immeasurably improved the way the ICC operates. In previous atrocities in places like Rwanda or Sarajevo the ICC did not get involved until the conflicts were over and investigations can take decades. They faced incredible hurdles in the recovery of evidence and tracing witnesses.

In areas where the Russians have been forced to retreat hundreds of bodies are found.[2] The number of crimes registered by Ukraine’s general prosecutor surpassed 11,200 and Unicef reported that at least 100 children were killed in the war in April alone. On 12th May 2022 the first war crimes trial got under way. Vadim Shishimarin a 21-year-old Russian soldier appeared in the dock accused of killing an unarmed civilian. He faces life in prison if convicted.[3]

In another case, which is likely to he heard in absentia, a soldier named as Mikhail Romanov is accused of breaking into a house in a village in the Brovarsky region in March, murdering a man and repeatedly raping his wife while “threatening her and her child with violence and weapons”. A second soldier also raped the 33-year-old woman and it is understood prosecutors believe they know his identity.

The UN has received “credible allegations” that Russian forces had used cluster munitions in populated areas. The UN has despatched nearly 60 UN human rights monitors in Ukraine, and have verified 77 incidents in which medical facilities were damaged, including 50 hospitals. Ukrainian cities have been pounded by airstrikes and heavy shelling in Russia’s five-week-old invasion, killing civilians and destroying hospitals in acts that may amount to war crimes.[4] Throughout Ukraine, the United Nations has so far documented 8317 civilian deaths and 13.892 injuries since the war began.[5]

Most notably, The ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and his commissioner for children's rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia since Moscow's invasion in 2022. The indoctrination of these children into Russian culture could elevate the charges to genocide. Of course there is slim chance Putin will ever be arrested unless Ukraine win the war and he is handed over as part of any settlement.

Back to Kemp: in 1978 he was an infantry platoon commander when he experienced his first enemy fire on the Falls Road. In total he did 8 tours of the occupied 6 counties and at some point he was wounded in a mortar attack in South Armagh. By Kemp's own account he has spent most his life fighting terrorism and insurgency, commanding British troops on the front line of some of the world’s toughest hotspots, including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. More recently, he spent his time in Downing Street as head of the international terrorism team at the Joint Intelligence Committee. He has Chaired the Cobra Intelligence Group, responsible for coordinating the work of the national intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6. In retirement, he is a Senior Associate Fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, a militarist think tank of war mongers, and a board member of Friends of Israel Initiative – I presume Kemp is the Mossad connection involved in Gibraltar. (See: Colonel Richard Kemp.


[1] Former SAS soldier arrested and charged in NSW for alleged war crime over killing of Afghan civilian.


⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Colonel Richard Kemp Distinguising British And Russian War Crimes

Christy Walsh  ✒ At this year's Ard Fheis, Mary Lou McDonald, and SF, have switched from opposition to the Special Criminal Courts (SCC), to the endorsement of them. 

In doing so, SFROI have also formally broken away from any solidarity with international organisations, such as, Amnesty International, the UN, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, who all continue to call for the Special Criminal Courts to be abolished regardless of SF’s inexplicable U-turn.

I am surprised they hadn’t endorsed the SCCs sooner, especially after it had previously endorsed Diplock Trials back in 2007. Albeit SF had attempted to sell the name change from Non-Jury Diplock Trials to just Non-Jury Trials as meaning an end to Diplock style trials. It wasn’t. However, in an attempt to save face, SFUK then conceded that the name change had resulted in fewer non-jury trials.

Fewer non-jury trials does not make them safer or fairer for those on trial. Instead, they serve to increase the negative stigma on anyone subjected to a Diplock style trial because the defendant will be portrayed in prejudicial light. In depriving a person from their right to a jury trial, an adverse inference is drawn, before a trial can be held, and the accused will be portrayed as a threat to a jury and thus removes any presumption of innocence. In other words, an accused person might not recover from the pretrial prejudice created that alleges that the accused is a dangerous person. In addition, the burden on the prosecution to prove its case is much less.

It is worth considering the origins of the falsehood that SF, in both jurisdictions on this island, now support. In the north of Ireland, the Diplock Commission recommended the abolishment of jury trials on the false assertion that juries had been intimidated. The Commission confirmed that it found no evidence of any jury being intimidated before recommending that juries in scheduled offence cases should be abolished. However, when one examines the Diplock Commission’s remit one can readily see that its primary function was to find a more palatable alternative to internment without trial.
1. We were appointed to consider “what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book, otherwise than by internment, by the Executive, individuals involved in terrorist activities, particularly those who plan and direct, but do not necessarily take part in, terrorist acts; and to make recommendations.”

This should be considered in light of the failure of internment and Brigadier Frank Kitson’s arguments that the law should be used as just another weapon in the Government’s arsenal to suppress insurgency.

Simultaneously in the south of Ireland, the non-jury Special Criminal Courts were established on the same false claim that juries were also being intimidated in the south. In both its 2010 and 2013 reports on Jury Service, The Law Review Commission repeats that the:

Minister for Justice noted that the Garda Síochána had confirmed that instances of jury intimidation had occurred and that it was more surreptitious than witness intimidation.

The Commission was not overly confident in the claim that it only happens in secret. On that basis, the Commission tactfully concluded that jury intimidation was more an anecdotal claim than actually true or false.

There is no more evidence of jury intimidation today as there was in 1972. SF now support non-jury trials in the south of Ireland if the term ‘emergency’ is dropped and replaced with the word ‘exceptional’ grounds and that the law is put on a more permanent footing. SF’s endorsement of non-jury trials is now on a united Ireland basis and is nothing more than a change in its values and strategy. Jurors have not been threatened in recent times any more than they were back in 1972. 

The only thing that has changed is SF, preparing to enter government, and perhaps its endorsement of oppressive and draconian measures is an indicator that they will be as ruthless or oppressive as any Brit government if they feel they need to be.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Sinn Fein’s United Ireland Endorsement Of Non-jury Trials

Christy Walsh ✒ looks at the British Amnesty controversy.

Rex non potest dare gratiam cum injurid et damno aliorum

The King cannot confer a favour on one subject which occasions injury and loss to others.

Introduction

This article makes no judgment on whether, or not, any former combatants warrant prosecution for unlawful killing’s that they may have committed during the Conflict.  

It is, however, intended to provide more information than is commonly available to remove the current confusion and misconceptions over the function and remit of an amnesty.

Pardons, clemency and amnesties mean the same thing; where the latter is the collective or composite term used when applied to a large class of people such as insurgents or political agitators[1]. Pardons can be implemented in various individual arrangements, such as conditional, free, full, posthumous or pre-charge pardons and they can all be applied collectively as an amnesty.

Amnesty: A sovereign act of pardon and oblivion for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or to certain persons) who have been guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses,—treason, sedition, rebellion,—and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time.[2]

Full pardons bring an end to a criminal penalty or void any sentence passed at the end of a trial; also, the pardoned person might even be compensated for any time spent in jail: “however, [it] does not erase the conviction nor imply innocence.” [3] In other words, pardons only negate the penalty but not the actual validity of the conviction. On that basis, there is no precedent of a pardon being granted to prevent investigations or judicial process where prima facie evidence of guilt exists. Whereas, conditional pardons involve an alteration of the original sentence. The terms ‘commutation’ and ‘remission’ are forms of conditional pardons where their objective is to remit, reprieve or otherwise reduce the severity of a sentence. For example, on 27th April 1948, the Lord Chancellor announced that “prisoners who are serving sentences of penal servitude for the part they took in the I.R.A. outrages in 1939 and 1940” were to be released “earlier than in the ordinary course”. [4] The early release scheme under the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 are a good example of a statutory amnesty for the early release of paramilitary prisoners.[5]

Leslie Sebba, at the Institute of Criminology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem asserts that an:

amnesty was an event of considerable social impact. Moreover, the elation generated among the offending population companied by a concomitant degree of concern on the part of the public in general and the police in particular.[6] 

It was for these reasons that the UK Government was extremely uncomfortable during the Northern Ireland peace talks in the 1990s when it came to prisoner releases. The use of the word amnesty was, for many, a trigger word particularly among those who had been victims of non-state actors to the conflict;as is now evident among the families of those murdered by state actors.

Pardons or amnesties are intended to relieve offenders from a criminal penalty where their otherwise unlawful conduct attracted the penalty or is likely to do so. The Queen’s Pardon is said to forgive and forget an offence committed against the Crown on the undertaking that it will not be repeated. The current proposed statutory amnesty is intended to relieve former British Soldiers from criminal punishments for any murders they may have committed during the conflict. 

However, the amnesty presently being considered is being viewed as a means of preventing any further prosecutions against former British Soldiers from commencing in the first place. A pre-trial pardon or amnesty cannot, in itself, prevent prosecutions where the test for prosecution has been met. While Parliament has the power to enact statutory amnesties, such acts must be compatible with international human rights law and any other relevant international agreements and treaties.

Pre-Charge and Pre-Conviction Pardons

A pardon may be granted any time after the commission of an offence and before judicial proceedings have been undertaken or during their pendency.[7] “A pardon is valid even if the one pardoned has not been indicted or convicted.”[8] However, the grant of a pre-conviction pardon does not have the authority to upset or prevent ongoing legal proceedings because of "the constitutional doctrine that the sovereign cannot exercise judicial power except through her courts.”[9] In other words, a pardon can be granted as a surety against any resulting penalty but cannot prevent the actual trial from proceeding to the normal conviction and sentencing stages: “If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent from conviction from attaching.”[10] A pre-conviction pardon cannot prevent the Court from performing its function, but any subsequent conviction would be in name only, because the pardon: "operates as an extinguishment of the penalty inflicted by the judgment of conviction, and all its attending circumstances.”[11] The Court would have to consider if continuing with a prosecution and trial without punishment served the public interest. Unfortunately, because the purpose of the amnesty is in the best interests of former state-actors, the Courts would have to take into consideration Government policy intention to ride roughshod over individual victims’ rights. However, the Court would have to take into account how compelling the evidence against the accused was and if it was against the interests of the public to discontinue legal proceedings.

It is worth comparing the South African model for amnesty and truth recovery. Boris Johnson’s suggested amnesty is primarily focused upon ending all prosecutions of former British Soldiers who may have committed murder and war crimes during the Conflict. In South Africa, a combatant could obtain immunity from prosecution if they revealed and discussed their unlawful acts as part of the healing and truth recovery process. Whereas, Johnson’s model potentially shuts down any further truth recovery in disregard of the interests of victims rights.

Note: Amnesty and immunity can be mistakenly interpreted as meaning the same thing; In the context of this article it is to be understood that pardons relieve a person from a penalty post-conviction and not from being prosecuted per say, whereas, immunity from prosecution allows a person to impart their role in an unlawful killing without fear of being prosecuted.

Beneficiaries of the Proposed Amnesty

Those to whom the proposed amnesty is intended would have to identify themselves to avail of the amnesty. For example, after the Rebellion of the United Irishmen in 1798, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Cornwallis, issued a proclamation on 22nd September 1799 “requiring every person in County Galway who had been engaged in the late rebellion to apply for pardon under the Act of Amnesty.” [12] Whereas, any new amnesty introduced today would lay in abeyance until someone indicated that they wished to avail of it; “Like any other deed, a pardon must be brought judicially before the court by plea, motion or otherwise.”[13] This might only occur once a prosecution has been initiated against someone or they are aware that one is imminent. To comply with modern equality laws, the amnesty would have to include former Loyalists and Republican paramilitaries and not just the intended target of former members of the British Army suspected of committing murder or war crimes.

It would be a matter for the prosecution service or the Court to decide if continuing with a prosecution would be in the public interest. The amnesty itself is unlikely to have the legal or constitutional power to enforce the discontinuance of investigations or prosecutions; though the fact that, ultimately, no penalty can be enforced might itself be persuasive enough for discontinuation of all legacy related prosecutions on the grounds of costs and in the public interest. A prosecution is not evidence of guilt so an innocent British Soldier could potentially seek to rely upon the availability of the amnesty simply to avoid the understandable distress of being prosecuted in error.

However, if the prosecution were to continue in the public interest a successful conviction might be seen as just satisfaction enough. Although the convicted person might not spend a day in jail they would forever stand convicted of murder and must disclose that fact when officially obliged to do so. A pardon "does not obliterate the fact of the commission of the crime [and] it does not wash out the moral stain;” rather, it involves a desire for “forgiveness and not forgetfulness".[14]

In light of the proposed amnesty, both the Court and Prosecution would have to consider, in advance, if it is in the public interest to proceed to trial in such cases. It would be for that technical reason why prosecutions might not be pursued and not because an amnesty has any legal or constitutional authority to stop prosecutions or investigations; “A pardon, while it absolves the offender, does not touch the rights of others.”[15] In addition, any proposed amnesty cannot, in any way, limit or prevent, citizens from pursuing civil actions.
 
30th March 1972 Statutory Amnesty

The first codification of pardons was introduced by King Charles II through the enactment of An Act of Free and General Pardon Indemnity and Oblivion [1660]. The Act was to bring to an end the English Civil War and as a commitment from the King that he would not seek revenge against the Rebels. In return, the Rebels would recognise Charles II as the lawful king and all standing armies would be re-commissioned into service under the crown. The pardons were intended to be complete, in that all offences and punishments were null and void, including the Rebels involved in beheading his father King Charles I. Lands and other property were to be returned.[16]

British troops arrived in Northern Ireland on 14 August 1969, at the request of the then Prime Minister, James Chichester-Clark, while the Battle of the Bogside was raging in Derry. Internment was then introduced on 9th August 1971 by a new Prime Minister, Brian Faulkner. Countless Internees suffered serious physical injuries during their arrests[17] that eventually lead to the Irish Government taking the UK to the European Court of Human Rights for torture and other physical abuses.[18] Regarding the brutality meted out during interrogations, in his Report, Lord Parker concluded as follows:

The blame for this sorry story, if blame there be, must lie with those who, many years ago, decided that in emergency conditions in Colonial-type situations we should abandon our legal, well-tried and highly successful wartime interrogation methods and replace them by procedures which were secret, illegal, not morally justifiable and alien to the traditions of what I believe still to be the greatest democracy in the world.[19]

John Hume and others challenged Brian Faulkner’s authority to introduce Internment and order the British Army to carry his orders out. On 29th March 1972, the Court concluded that section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 limited the Northern Ireland Stormont Government’s powers to introduce new laws or regulations “under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 which purported to confer powers on officers and members of Her Majesty's forces on duty.”[20] In other words, Mr Faulkner had no authority to give commands to members of Her Majesty's forces in the “navy, the army, the air force, the territorial army, or any other naval, military, or air force”[21]. In other words, he treated the British Army as Stormont's standing army and the Army took orders from him as if they served Stormont and not the Crown.

The Court concluded that all orders and commands given to Her Majesty’s forces by Faulkner “relating to military matters which had been created by legislation by or under the Parliament of Northern Ireland was void and of no effect.” This effectively derives from the 1660 Act of Oblivion that there should be no standing armies other than those under the command and service of the sovereign. Sir William Searle Holdsworth observes that Parliament has never consented to the raising, or keeping, of a standing army since 1660 and the introduction of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.[22] This means that, while acting under authority of Faulkner, every interaction between the Army and civilian population, if even a 5minute stop at the side of the road, was unlawful.

Within 24 hours, on 30th March 1972, in response to the Court’s judgment in Hume and Others, Parliament introduced a statutory amnesty under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, wherein, no British soldier would stand trial for any unlawful act committed under the direction of Stormont and the NI Prime Minister. Section 6(1)(b)[23] asserted that all unlawful laws, regulations or orders issued by the NI Government or its Minister are to, retrospectively, be treated as “references to the Secretary of State or any person appointed by him to discharge the relevant functions.” The legislation created a new Northern Ireland Office (NIO), supervised by a new Secretary of State, Mr William Whitelaw.[24] Section 6(2) of the Act retrospectively legalised all unlawful acts committed by the Army: “This Act shall not invalidate anything done before it comes into force."

In effect The Temporary Provisions Act served as a statutory amnesty to all members of the British Army for their part in the widespread unlawful detentions, arrests, house searches, imprisonments, beatings and/or shootings that they had carried out in pursuance of Stormont's orders. Hence, any British soldier who might have ordinarily been prosecuted for his crimes had, within 24 hours, been speedily pardoned in advance of any charges. Under both common law and Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the law can not make unlawful arrests and imprisonments without trial, retrospectively lawful.

Although members of the British Army had been granted immunity from their criminal liability, no remedy was provided for those unlawfully detained, mistreated, imprisoned and even murdered by the British Army between 9th August 1971 and 29th March 1972.

Conclusion

The proposed introduction of another statutory amnesty to shield former members of the security forces from accountability for crimes committed during the course of the NI Conflict ought not to escape the scrutiny that the 30th March 1972 statutory amnesty did. The 1972 statutory amnesty was introduced at a time when lawyers and the public were not as aware of human and civil rights as they are today.

There is no precedent in UK law where a pardon relieved a suspect from scrutiny; pardons only relieve the guilty from any subsequent penalty for their criminal conduct and not an investigation. If prosecutions are not pursued where there is prima facie evidence of guilt, it would be because it was considered contrary to the public interest in cases where a penalty cannot be implemented or enforced on account of the proposed pardons. Taking a lesson from South Africa, immunity from prosecution was available where Combatant’s were prepared to give a full and open account of any unlawful killings they may have been involved in.

Finally, any valid grounds for civil action against British Soldiers would remain unscathed by any amnesty because citizens’ rights cannot be forfeited or negated on foot of any pardon or amnesty.

(1) In 1848 the UK Parliament debated extending pardons to include 3 Canadian political agitators who had been not been pardoned along with others, see Pardon of Political Offenders, HC Deb 06 April 1848 vol 97 cc1369-90. 

(2) Black's Law Dictionary Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1910, at page 66:

(3) The Queens Pardon, C.H. Rolph, Cassell and Collier Ltd, 1978, pp.35-36

(4) Written Answers, 27th April 1948, Volume 155. 

[5] Daniel F. Mulvihill, "The Legality of the Pardoning of Paramilitaries under the Early Release Provisions of Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement," Cornell International Law Journal, Volume 34, Issue 1 2001, Article 6, at page 241.

[6] Leslie Sebba, "Amnesty—A Quasi-Experiment", The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 19, No. 1 (January 1979), pp. 5-30, at p.6.

[7] W W Thornton, 'Pardon and Amnesty' (1885) 6 The Criminal Law Magazine 457, at 471

[8] Pardon and Amnesty, The Criminal Law Magazine, Vol. VI. July 1885. No. 4. pp.457-500, p.485

See also, Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867), p.380. And, n50,p.3.

[9] R (On the Application of Michael Shields) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWHC 3102 (Admin), para.22.

[10] ibid, p.2.

[11] W W Thornton, 'Pardon and Amnesty' (1885) 6 The Criminal Law Magazine 457, at 486.

[12] James G. Patterson, "Republicanism, Agrarianism and Banditry in the West of Ireland, 1798-1803", Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 35, No. 137 (May 2006), pp. 17-39, at page 33.

[13] W W Thornton, 'Pardon and Amnesty' (1885) 6 The Criminal Law Magazine 457, at 493.

[14] F. Gregory Murphy v. Gerald R. Ford, as President of the United States, 390 F.Supp. 1372 (1975), p.3 citing Page v. Watson, 140 Fla. 536, 192 So. 205, p.208.

[15] W W Thornton, 'Pardon and Amnesty' (1885) 6 The Criminal Law Magazine 457, at 358.

[16] ibid, at Section II. "Abettors of such Treasons and other Crimes pardoned and restored to their Lands." https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp226-234#h3-0010.

[17] Report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors Appointed to consider authorised procedures for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, Chairman: Lord Parker of Waddington, March 1972. 

[18] Ireland V United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25.

[19] Report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors appointed to consider authorised procedures for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, Chairman: Lord Parker of Waddington, March 1972. 

[20] Regina (Hume and Others) V Londonderry Justices [1972] NI 91 QBD, at the conclusion.

[21] ibid.

[22] W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 3rd Edition, 1922-1923, London, Volume 6, p.241. https://archive.org/details/historyofenglish06holduoft.

[23] The Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972.

[24] University of Ulster: CAIN Web Service - Conflict and Politics in Northern Ireland; Chronology.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence and spent many years in prison as a result.

Amnesty ➖ A Tonic For The Troops

Christy Walsh is offering help to Applicants who might be experiencing difficulties with applications to the Criminal Case Review Commission. 

I am a member of the Criminal Cases Stakeholder Forum which convenes in London around 3 times per year. The Forum is focused on improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the CCRC for Applicant’s. The Forum is comprised of 20 members drawn from Journalists, Lawyers, Academics and NGO’s who have an active track record in highlighting miscarriages of justice cases. At least 2 members of the CCRC will be present at each meeting. The Forum can make recommendations to the CCRC on ways in which it can improve its handling of applications or in communicating with Applicant’s on the progress of their application. Or, if there are any trends in complaints or difficulties being expressed from Applicants. 

The Forum has been up and running now for just over its first year. The general perception of Applicant’s from the 6 counties is that they are all satisfied with exception of 1 or 2 specific conflicts that Applicants from up north have had with the CCRC.

I am just putting this out there to see if any 6 County Applicants are having problems. I am curious to know if there are any problems or concerns with the CCRC specific to its handling of cases from the 6 counties? If any 6 county Applicants would like to email me about any problem or concern they are having with the CCRC over the handling of their case then they could let me know so that I might be able to raise it directly during a Forum meeting (walsh_christy@yahoo.co.uk).

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence and spent many years in prison as a result.

Criminal Cases Stakeholder Forum

Christy Walsh answers thirteen questions in a Booker's Dozen.


TPQ: What are you currently reading?

CW: Have only just started A River of Bodies by Kevin Doyle. It’s the sequel to his first book To Keep a Bird Singing. The first book gave me a very different view of the Troubles as a political thriller based entirely in Cork without any need to bring the reader up north –essentially the activists in the south had their own dangers and perils to contend with.

TPQ: Best book you have ever read?

CW: I did read Lord of the Rings about six times when still in my teens but would not now describe it as my best book. I don’t think I have one, but certain books for one reason or another are specifically memorable to me –1 book I thoroughly got into was Daughter of Earth by Agnes Smedley – the first half was really good then the second half was like a different writer wrote it and I endured the rest of the book in hope but it never recovered –l ike now when it comes to mind I think of it in regret as to what it could have been. Primo Levi’s If This is a Man is another book written in two contrasting halves – though this one made sense. One novel that was a must read for me was Kafka’s The Trial and oddly enough it was in the Big Cell on H4C. Which reminds me that I also read Faligot’s The Kitson Experiment in the blocks which was supposedly banned in Norn Iron and I came across it in jail of all places –and still have that copy. I also have a signed copy of Kitson’s A Bunch of Fives which I will leave to the conspiracy theorists on how I got him to sign it.

TPQ: A must-read before you die?

CW: My will; I would have a sense of satisfaction that I would have anything to bequeath. And, given how wills can go wrong, I’d have to double check the small print that I didn’t fuck it up.

TPQ: A preference for fact or fiction?

CW: I love to get lost in fiction but I find I read a lot more fact based material –I have been reading, on and off for the last six months, Alan Dershowitz’s Premption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways and rereading Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism – as well as following a number of favourite blog sites which is probably where I do a significant amount of my daily reading. I started reading non-fiction in my teens –authors like Ernie O’Malley, Tim Pat Coogan, Liz Curtis, and John McGuffin to name a few I can still remember.

TPQ: Favourite female author?

CW: Sue Grafton is good for zoning out and Donna Tartt’s The Secret History was excellent –but poignant reads were Alice Walker’s evocative Colour Purple and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mocking Bird (which was hard to read and not see Gregory Peck at every reference to Atticus Finch ).


TPQ: Favourite male author?

CW: At the moment Timothy Endicott – his text book on Administrative Law is so easy to digest in comparison to others and so he’s my favourite of the month because he makes life easier for a chapter of my Phd Thesis. In reality I have no favourite – I have just discovered Adrian McKinty and love the grittiness of his writing. I love Stephen King and because he is so prolific a writer his name features prominently, but I have also equally loved reading John Le Carre, Robert Ludlum, and John Grisham to name just a few.

TPQ: First book you ever read?

CW: Can’t remember but Enid Blyton’s Secret Seven Books and Hamilton’s Billy Bunter series are the first independent reading I ever did followed by Walter Macken’s Trilogy.

TPQ: Favourite childhood author?

CW: Richard Adams and Tolkien dominated my teenage years.

TPQ: Any book you point blank refuse to read?

CW: On the Back of a Swallow by you know who – I tried to read it but it is dire shite – it is soooo bad that I have not got the nerve to chance any of his other books in case I revisit that utter waste of time I spent trying to read his first book. I will never get that time back – prison years were infinitely more enriching. That’s a shame really because the man has written some good articles but maybe he is only good at short starts and stops?

TPQ: Any author you point blank refuse to read?

CW: Ditto.

TPQ: Pick a book to give to somebody so that they would more fully understand you.

CW: My memoirs when finished; but I also have a novel on the go which draws from a lot of life experiences.

TPQ: Last book you gave as a present?

CW: Traditional Boats of Ireland: History, Folklore and Construction – first rate reference book for anyone into boats or Irish Maritime History. (This book could in part answer your earlier question as I do some voluntary work in a traditional boat builders yard. I also row and sail and I am a youth rowing coach.)

TPQ: Book you would most like to see turned into a movie?

CW: The Rope Factory by me, when its published.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence and spent many years in prison as a result.

Booker’s Dozen @ Christy Walsh



Christy Walsh calls for the prosecution of the theocratic fascist Lisa Smith under the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

We needed to … prosecute Isis – from the leaders down to the citizens who had supported their atrocities – for genocide and crimes against humanity - ISIS survivor Nadia Murad.

Irish national and self-proclaimed harmless ISIS Housewife, Lisa Smith, wants to come back to Ireland. More appropriately, as a member of ISIS, she should be extradited to face charges for her contribution to ISIS acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

According to media reports she believes there is little possibility of her going to prison because her only role was as some sort of harmless ISIS housewife. It is likely that she and other ISIS wives are getting their stories straight in preparation to being returned to their countries of origin. They no doubt are discussing the impossibility facing countries to proving what, if any, atrocities any of these women may have personally committed; especially where the victims may all be dead or scattered across the globe. No doubt they all intend to deny that they were ever ISIS fighters but that would not absolve them for their crimes.

Lisa Smith, mistakenly, seems to believe that she can return to Ireland with almost impunity other than she may lose her passport to prevent her from traveling. Even if Smith was not a combatant or part of the all-female morality police, the feared Al-Khansa Brigade, she can still stand trial under Irish law for the war criminal that she is. For the purposes of charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, or, war crimes one does not need to be a combatant: private individuals like Lisa Smith can also be liable.

Ireland does not need to prove Smith was ever an ISIS fighter before convicting her as a war criminal. She also denies she, unlike other wives, taught her ‘fighter’ husband how to use a gun. Regardless of her denials her defence of only being a housewife is not a defence against ancillary charges to acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Irish law has been in place for more than a decade to specifically deal with the eventuality of people like Lisa Smith. Ireland incorporated, into Irish Law, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Convention was originally adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948 and all contracting states, including Ireland, are committed to punish anyone involved or complicit in acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) was an important victory against impunity for large-scale human rights violations such as we have seen committed by ISIS. Ireland signed the Rome Statute on 7 October 1998 and ratified it on 11 April 2002. The statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague which hears cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Dáil legislated into Irish law the International Criminal Court Act 2006 (2006 Act). Essentially, Smith’s inadequate defence is that because she was not a fighter then neither the Rome Statute nor Section 7 of the Irish 2006 Act would apply to her. Section 7(1) reads: "Any person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime is guilty of an offence.” No doubt, Lisa Smith and the other ISIS wives are getting their stories straight in preparation of defeating any charges alleging their direct participation in war crimes.

Section 58 of the 2006 Act provides for the convening of a War Crimes Tribunal within the jurisdiction of Ireland instead of at The Hague. National prosecutions are considered the preferred means of prosecuting genocides and war crimes. The Rome Statute recognizes the primacy of national courts, since one of its guiding principles is that the ICC shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. Ireland has a responsibility to every single victim of ISIS to prosecute any of its own nationals who may have contributed to ISIS crimes against humanity.

Section 9(3) of the 2006 Act allows for Lisa Smith to be tried in Ireland for ancillary war crime offences committed in Syria or elsewhere. Section 12(1) also states that:

An Irish national who does an act outside the State that, if done within it, would constitute an ICC offence or an offence under section 11(1) is guilty of that offence and liable to the penalty provided for it.

Any pending charges against Lisa Smith ought to reflect the seriousness with which Ireland views her involvement with ISIS. Specifically, section 66 of the 2006 Act amends the Defence Act 1954 where if Jane Smith was convicted of any offence(s) under section 7 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) or section 8 (ancillary offences) of the 2006 Act, then she could be liable for either a life sentence; a sentence not exceeding 30 years; or, if found guilty of several charges the accumulative sentencing must not exceed her serving more than 30 years.

Unfortunately for Lisa Smith, as an ISIS housewife, could at very least be liable under section 8 of the 2006 Act. Section 8 involves offences ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Lisa Smith’s lifestyle and occupying the plundered homes of ISIS victims are ancillary offence to direct acts of genocide or war crimes. Where Smith lived is an important factor because it likely involved the pillage or plunder of the homes and other property of ISIS victims. As a civilian housewife, Lisa Smith, would have participated directly in ISIS hostilities without becoming a combatant simply by occupying property plundered and pillaged by ISIS.

Ms Smith confirms that she was aware of the atrocities being carried out by ISIS but shows a complete lack of remorse for the terrible things that were done. She is reported to have defiantly asserted how "Isis was not over yet, not over yet”. And, disturbingly suggested that “maybe the Islamic State will rise again”. This woman’s views remain a threat to mankind.

Further, she detachedly opines: ‘Of course, anyone would think this person’s a psycho but to be honest what you seen is not how we lived, we lived very normal lives like back home.’ Normal lives? Perhaps as an ISIS homemaker; while she was making the beds, the owners of those beds where likely being subjected to something awful outside; like being beheaded, crucified or burned alive; and their children may have been sold as sex slaves. There is nothing normal about Lisa Smith or her ISIS lifestyle choice.

The convening of a War Crimes Tribunal in Ireland would afford any ISIS victims already living in Ireland to testify to the tragedies and horrors that they and their families had been subjected too when fleeing in terror from their homes. They would not need to identify Lisa Smith personally, they need only give an account of what it cost them in personal terms for Lisa Smith and other ISIS wives to live, as Smith describes “normal lives” in their victims plundered homes.

⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence and spent many years in prison as a result.

Lisa Smith: Irish ISIS War Criminal

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)