Britain extends use of discredited Diplock Courts
in the Six Counties
Special non-jury 'Diplock' courts are to remain part of the British judicial system in the Six Counties, it was confirmed this week. Paul Goggins, on behalf of British government, announced on Monday (June 8) the intention to extend non-jury trials for at least another two years, despite previous claims that the repressive measure was to be scrapped by July 31 this year.
The history of non-jury courts has shown that they are wide open to the abuse of power by the judiciary and have resulted in countless miscarriages of justice. Therefore, it is with great concern that the Duffy family view this latest development. Colin's brother Paul said:
"Our family consider this about-turn by the British government as an attempt to secure a conviction if Colin's case goes to trial. It is notable, that in order to justify this latest decision, Paul Goggins made reference to the attack at Masserene barracks in Antrim of which Colin is charged in connection with. In the past under the Diplock system it was a lot easier for the British to secure a conviction, given the non-use of a jury trial. At a stroke, this decision has removed Colin's fundamental right to a fair trial."
The Diplock system of non-jury trial and ancillary provisions, which was introduced in 1973 as part of the Emergency Provisions Act, has remained in operation in a substantially unmodified form since that time.
For thirty six years, successive British governments have justified the Diplock system and the other emergency powers that have been used in the North of Ireland on the basis that they were a "temporary" expedient necessitated by the public emergency posed by political unrest. The departure from fundamental domestic and international norms, it was argued, was a necessary evil to protect the community from even greater harm.
However, many internationally-respected human rights organisations have long held the view that the decision to remove the right to jury trial was taken prematurely for reasons of political expediency. Those same organisations have never been convinced that the risk of intimidation or bias was so high as to justify this removal of fundamental rights.
Nevertheless, despite widespread international objections, the Diplock Court system went hand in hand with a culture within the state that its forces felt they could operate with impunity. With corrupt and political policing, a lower standard of evidence required and a case-hardened judge sitting without a jury, a conviction was and is much easier to obtain in a Diplock Court. It is equally true that it is therefore much more difficult to prove a convicted person innocent.
In order for a conviction to be overturned, an innocent person must furnish new evidence or discredit the evidence on which they were convicted. This has proven a difficult problem.
Amnesty International, for example, found that almost eighty percent of those convicted in Diplock courts were found guilty based on confessions given at notorious holding centres like Castlereagh and Gough Barracks, now both replaced by the fortress-like Antrim Holding Centre. It was simply a matter of those crown servants who inflicted the torture telling the crown's Diplock judge that the dedicated political suspect confessed as a matter of conscience and then immediately injured himself or herself. Jurors, of course, could not have been counted upon to stomach such testimony.
The refusal of the British government to abolish Diplock Courts for all offences runs contrary to their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement and their extension of the use of non-jury trials for several more years will undermine the development of human rights in this part of Ireland.
Even though the system is ultimately at fault, overturning a wrongful conviction is a painstaking and extremely lengthy legal task in each individual case. Any cursory examination of many of any number of cases which were heard in front of these non-jury Diplock courts since 1973 shows that there were countless miscarriages of justice which resulted in many young men and women spending years in prison for offences they did not commit.
In 1993 Colin spent over three years of his life imprisoned in Crumlin Road and Long Kesh as a result of this conveyor belt system of "british justice". What is clear today, unfortunately, is that while the Diplock system remains in place, such travesties of justice will undoubtedly continue. Colin's family would call on all those who are interested in true justice to condemn this latest decision by the British government.