Ed Sinn Fein leader arrested for 1972 IRA killing

[Strawberry]

I believe the rules are the same on paper in NI as in E&W, LondonJohn. However, on NI's news its routine to hear of a file being sent to the PPS following a judge's decision to extend a suspect's detention for questioning. In many, if not most cases, you hear no more about the case or you hear it reported that no charges will be brought.

Its probably due to the extra sensitivity of relations generally between the police and various communities, and in this case there would be extra extra sensitivity because the suspect is the leader of the second largest political party in NI. Its difficult to know what will happen here without knowing more about what evidence the PSNI have, but if they have nothing but the word of two dead dissident republicans, (Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes), there is no chance of a conviction even if they do charge.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe the rules are the same on paper in NI as in E&W, LondonJohn. However, on NI's news its routine to hear of a file being sent to the PPS following a judge's decision to extend a suspect's detention for questioning. In many, if not most cases, you hear no more about the case or you hear it reported that no charges will be brought.

Its probably due to the extra sensitivity of relations generally between the police and various communities, and in this case there would be extra extra sensitivity because the suspect is the leader of the second largest political party in NI. Its difficult to know what will happen here without knowing more about what evidence the PSNI have, but if they have nothing but the word of two dead dissident republicans, (Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes), there is no chance of a conviction even if they do charge.

Yes, the actual evidence set is an interesting matter. As you say, if it's nothing more than these Boston College tapes featuring now-dead dissidents, then it's extremely hard to see any prospect of charges - far less any convictions. However, it's also difficult to square this against the amount of time that Adams was detained and questioned. I feel pretty confident that if indeed this was all the police had to work on, Adams could and would have been out of the police station the same day he was arrested (or the following day at most). The fact that he was kept for four days tends to indicate to me very strongly that there is other evidence. Apart from anything else, I would find it impossible that the additional arrest time would have been granted if there was nothing more than the Boston College tapes.

I guess we might find out more about all this in the coming days and weeks.

 

[platonov]

Wow

Yes, the actual evidence set is an interesting matter. As you say, if it's nothing more than these Boston College tapes featuring now-dead dissidents, then it's extremely hard to see any prospect of charges - far less any convictions. However, it's also difficult to square this against the amount of time that Adams was detained and questioned. I feel pretty confident that if indeed this was all the police had to work on, Adams could and would have been out of the police station the same day he was arrested (or the following day at most). The fact that he was kept for four days tends to indicate to me very strongly that there is other evidence. Apart from anything else, I would find it impossible that the additional arrest time would have been granted if there was nothing more than the Boston College tapes.

I guess we might find out more about all this in the coming days and weeks.

Wow Wow Wow

You think so ?

I don't want to shock you – but if you do some basic research you may find that Vol republican activist G Adams and the RUC PSNI have some history

By all means wait for a few weeks to find out but some 'research' might be helpful in the meantime.
Perhaps ABC10 (& Wildcat) and you could pool resources and get up to speed.

Also - Are you under the impression that D Hughes was a dissident ?

ps Does this stuff never make the news in London !! – it did once.

 

[angrysoba]

I know plenty enough about the IRA that I'm not the one here making excuses for them.

The "political wing" is threatening violence if Adams isn't released. Where are those "inciting hatred" laws now? I guess they're reserved for those who can't follow through with real violence.

Who's making excuses for the IRA? I am instead helping to educate you on the questions you asked me. Now I have provided the links and you have not even thanked me.

 

[Damien Evans]

Nelson Mandela didn't threaten violence when Winnie was being tried for crimes.

Sinn Fein, not so much. Murdering mafia scumbags.

It's hard to threaten violence when you're already serving a life sentence I suspect.

 

[catsmate]

I don't think it's quite so black and white as this.

I've been out and about, but caught a BBC radio report earlier which stated that a report was being prepared for the Crown Prosecution Service in NI. The report said (IIRC) that the report was being sent to the Deputy Driector of Public Prosecutions for NI, but only since the actual DPP for NI has recused himself from the matter on account of having acted for Adams in the past.

If these reports are accurate and reliable, then Adams ought to be pretty concerned right now. Reports only get sent to senior prosecutors if the police believe they have a solid case to be made for pressing charges. The CPS actually makes the charging decision though (based on a) whether there's a realistic chance of conviction, and b) whether it's in the public interest to prosecute), so they will read the police file and use it in their decision-making process.

And (again if these reports are accurate) it's fair to say that therefore the police do think they have sufficient evidence to convince the CPS to authorise charging Adams with one or more criminal offences. If they didn't, they wouldn't be sending a report to the CPS in the first place.

No. The report being submitted is commonplace, meaningless, boilerplate. A person has been questioned under caution, and their detention extended, so a report will be filed along with all the other paper. It has no special implications

PS: For further context about Adam's current legal position, it's worth pointing out that he's also currently under investigation by the Attorney General for NI, who is determining whether Adams should be charged with a criminal offence in relation to withholding information in the case of his brother (Liam Adams), who was convicted last October of sexually abusing his (Liam Adams') daughter.

So Adams potentially might have two different (and unrelated) criminal matters to defend himself against over the next several months. Watch this space, I guess............

The Liam Adams case is more interesting, as there is actually a chance, albeit slim, of a charge being brought.

That said, the chance of either actually getting into court is negligible.

What is your source that the political wing of the terrorist/mafia organization the IRA didn't threaten violence if Dear Leader wasn't released?

You first.

I believe the rules are the same on paper in NI as in E&W, LondonJohn.

They are, it's a routine matter, and addition to what we still refer to here as the "Book of Evidence"

However, on NI's news its routine to hear of a file being sent to the PPS following a judge's decision to extend a suspect's detention for questioning. In many, if not most cases, you hear no more about the case or you hear it reported that no charges will be brought.

Absolutely.

Its probably due to the extra sensitivity of relations generally between the police and various communities, and in this case there would be extra extra sensitivity because the suspect is the leader of the second largest political party in NI. Its difficult to know what will happen here without knowing more about what evidence the PSNI have, but if they have nothing but the word of two dead dissident republicans, (Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes), there is no chance of a conviction even if they do charge.

Agreed. The PSNI have to give the impression that they're achieving something.

 

[Strawberry]

While, contrary to Wildcat's fantasy, there were no threats of violence from Sinn Fein, there was actual violence last night from loyalists in Sandy Row throwing stones and petrol bombs at the police.

Thankfully nobody was hurt.

 

[platonov]

Is google your friend ?

The BBC were reporting earlier that the Adams case is unlikely to go further, although with 'dark forces' who can say. One could make a guess.

Nevertheless if we take London Johns (naive or ill-in formed) argument as accurate – that the PSNI [HET ? ] are investigating old murder cases on the basis of evidence & without fear or favour UK politics could get very interesting.

When the PSNI arrest Mike Jackson/his colleagues & say .... Ronnie Flannagan it will be a fascinating example of 1st world jurisprudence.

I suspect the latter cases wont get to the Hague either

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow Wow Wow

You think so ?

I don't want to shock you – but if you do some basic research you may find that Vol republican activist G Adams and the RUC PSNI have some history

By all means wait for a few weeks to find out but some 'research' might be helpful in the meantime.
Perhaps ABC10 (& Wildcat) and you could pool resources and get up to speed.

Also - Are you under the impression that D Hughes was a dissident ?

ps Does this stuff never make the news in London !! – it did once.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, platonov.

Firstly, in answer to your question, I am indeed fully aware of the recent political history of Northern Ireland and the ROI, and of the relative roles (and histories) of Gerry Adams and the RUC/PSNI.

Secondly, I am also fully aware of the fact (but are you?) that there are obvious political sensitivities around the arrest of Gerry Adams last week. As such, it's my opinion that the PSNI would have been taking extra precaution to a) not exhibit any bias - for or against - in relation to how Adams was dealt with last week, and b) not be seen to be (or be held open to accusations of) bias.

Thirdly, Adams of course had high-power legal representation during his arrest and questioning (IIRC, he engaged the services of a barrister as well as a solicitor). It's therefore my opinion that had the length of time of the arrest and questioning been disproportionate and unfair, Adams' legal representatives would have a) had the power and experience to make arguments to that effect, and would have been successful in doing so, and b) made sure the wider public knew that Adams was being treated unfairly.

And fourthly, the process of applying for extra time to detain and question Adams would have required sign-off by at least a very senior police officer, and probably also a judge of some sort in this high-profile case. Those who were tasked with authorising the extension would also certainly have known the political sensitivities, and I'm therefore of the opinion that they would have made certain they were satisfied that there were solid, non-partisan, defensible grounds for authorising such an extension before agreeing to do so.

So, for all these reasons, I believe that there was very probably much more than the Boston College tapes that formed the basis of Adams' questioning.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe the rules are the same on paper in NI as in E&W, LondonJohn. However, on NI's news its routine to hear of a file being sent to the PPS following a judge's decision to extend a suspect's detention for questioning. In many, if not most cases, you hear no more about the case or you hear it reported that no charges will be brought.

Its probably due to the extra sensitivity of relations generally between the police and various communities, and in this case there would be extra extra sensitivity because the suspect is the leader of the second largest political party in NI. Its difficult to know what will happen here without knowing more about what evidence the PSNI have, but if they have nothing but the word of two dead dissident republicans, (Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes), there is no chance of a conviction even if they do charge.

I hear on the grapevine (no official attribution yet, it appears) that the PSNI believe there's sufficient evidence to charge Adams with membership of the IRA. I have not heard whether (allegedly) the PSNI believe there's also sufficient evidence to charge Adams in relation to this specific abduction/murder/burial though.

Still haven't found anything, by the way, that refers explicitly to the normal practice of the PSNI sending a file to the PPS if there is an extension of arrest/questioning. Do you have any sources that cover this point?

 

[Strawberry]

I hear on the grapevine (no official attribution yet, it appears) that the PSNI believe there's sufficient evidence to charge Adams with membership of the IRA. I have not heard whether (allegedly) the PSNI believe there's also sufficient evidence to charge Adams in relation to this specific abduction/murder/burial though.

Still haven't found anything, by the way, that refers explicitly to the normal practice of the PSNI sending a file to the PPS if there is an extension of arrest/questioning. Do you have any sources that cover this point?

I don't really know how to give you sources to prove that something is common practice, other than bombarding you with links to a whole load of cases where that happened. The rules are the same on paper, so I'm not going to find any link which says a file has to be sent to the PPS once an extension has been granted. I just know from listening to the news here every day that its the way things are done, probably because the PSNI, (for obvious reasons), want to be more careful than other police forces around the UK that they're not accused of any bias or harrassment against one community or another.

As for charging Adams with IRA membership 15 years after the war is over, and long after Adams himself has become part of a peace process to end it, that's not in the public interest. In my opinion that would have dissident republicans laughing up their sleeves and would completely discredit Sinn Fein's current leadership in favour of Republican Sinn Fein, the 32 county soveriegnty crowd and various others who are eager to get back to planting bombs in English shopping centres.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't really know how to give you sources to prove that something is common practice, other than bombarding you with links to a whole load of cases where that happened. The rules are the same on paper, so I'm not going to find any link which says a file has to be sent to the PPS once an extension has been granted. I just know from listening to the news here every day that its the way things are done, probably because the PSNI, (for obvious reasons), want to be more careful than other police forces around the UK that they're not accused of any bias or harrassment against one community or another.

I wasn't requiring proof - I am not questioning your assertion at all. I was just interested in reading more about it.

As for charging Adams with IRA membership 15 years after the war is over, and long after Adams himself has become part of a peace process to end it, that's not in the public interest. In my opinion that would have dissident republicans laughing up their sleeves and would completely discredit Sinn Fein's current leadership in favour of Republican Sinn Fein, the 32 county soveriegnty crowd and various others who are eager to get back to planting bombs in English shopping centres.

I tend to agree with you. I was merely making the point that (anecdotally, and allegedly) the PSNI feels there is a case for criminal charges to be brought against Adams.

But the public interest test would potentially be an extremely interesting area, if there actually was sufficient evidence to provide the realistic possibility of conviction. On the one hand, as you say, if charges were brought (let alone if a conviction were obtained) it could hugely damage the peace process and open the door to extremism (on both sides). But on the other hand, should senior Sinn Fein members be able to use that factor as a "get out of jail free" card. I tend to agree with you, as I said. But there's an interesting debate to be had around it, and it's certainly not a black-and-white issue.

 

[Strawberry]

But on the other hand, should senior Sinn Fein members be able to use that factor as a "get out of jail free" card.

Just to pick up on this point - if there's strong evidence that Adams or any other senior Sinn Fein member had involvement in Jean McConville's murder, (or indeed any murder for which they haven't already served a sentence), they should be prosecuted for it. But to start prosecuting Sinn Fein members for historical IRA membership long after the whole thing is over would be absolute insanity.

If you're going back as far as 1972 to look for IRA members you might as well round up half of Belfast's over 50s, and then round up the other half and charge them with historic membership of the UVF. That'll do alot of good, won't it? Might as well bring back internment without trial while we're at it.

 

[platonov]

Am I being naive

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, platonov.

Firstly, in answer to your question, I am indeed fully aware of the recent political history of Northern Ireland and the ROI, and of the relative roles (and histories) of Gerry Adams and the RUC/PSNI.

Secondly, I am also fully aware of the fact (but are you?) that there are obvious political sensitivities around the arrest of Gerry Adams last week. As such, it's my opinion that the PSNI would have been taking extra precaution to a) not exhibit any bias - for or against - in relation to how Adams was dealt with last week, and b) not be seen to be (or be held open to accusations of) bias.

Thirdly, Adams of course had high-power legal representation during his arrest and questioning (IIRC, he engaged the services of a barrister as well as a solicitor). It's therefore my opinion that had the length of time of the arrest and questioning been disproportionate and unfair, Adams' legal representatives would have a) had the power and experience to make arguments to that effect, and would have been successful in doing so, and b) made sure the wider public knew that Adams was being treated unfairly.

And fourthly, the process of applying for extra time to detain and question Adams would have required sign-off by at least a very senior police officer, and probably also a judge of some sort in this high-profile case. Those who were tasked with authorising the extension would also certainly have known the political sensitivities, and I'm therefore of the opinion that they would have made certain they were satisfied that there were solid, non-partisan, defensible grounds for authorising such an extension before agreeing to do so.
So, for all these reasons, I believe that there was very probably much more than the Boston College tapes that formed the basis of Adams' questioning.

That's certainly a possibility.


Really – so we can expect Mike Jackson and members of the armed group he had a leadership role in being arrested over 'unsolved' killings [ say in Ballymurphy ] in the near future ?

What do you hear on the grapevine about that

IIRC Villiers made a public comment on this recently – if the grapevine fails.

Just to pick up on this point - if there's strong evidence that Adams or any other senior Sinn Fein member had involvement in Jean McConville's murder, (or indeed any murder for which they haven't already served a sentence), they should be prosecuted for it. But to start prosecuting Sinn Fein members for historical IRA membership long after the whole thing is over would be absolute insanity.

If you're going back as far as 1972 to look for IRA members you might as well round up half of Belfast's over 50s, and then round up the other half and charge them with historic membership of the UVF. That'll do alot of good, won't it? Might as well bring back internment without trial while we're at it.

Obviously the membership thing is nonsense but equally obviously this non partisan policing involves more than UVF types ( see above).
Posters on this thread may not see the connection but the UK [& ROI] Gov and the republicans do.

I note that Adams said post release that they were not in favour of 'an amnesty'.

Actually here's an idea – perhaps the better informed (Irish/UK) posters could comment.

Non partisan policing seems to be the problem .......

Would parachuting say Bobby Storey or this Gerry Kelly guy (from the press conference) into a senior operational oversight role in the PSNI be a possible solution.
They seem to be well regarded in the republican community and appear to have some insight into counter terrorism measures.

Win Win – or am I being naive ?

 

[LondonJohn]

Really – so we can expect Mike Jackson and members of the armed group he had a leadership role in being arrested over 'unsolved' killings [ say in Ballymurphy ] in the near future ?

Hmmm, where to start......? How about:

1) These were/are not "unsolved" killings: known identifiable members of the Parachute Regiment shot dead a number of people. The only "unknown" element is whether the shootings were lawful or not.

2) Members of a recognised army wearing a uniform have a different status from paramilitary combatants, and different obligations/allowances. That's especially the case when the recognised army is fighting in a guerilla war against paramilitaries.

3) As mentioned in point (1), the sole issue for potential resolution is whether or not any or all of the fatal shootings were lawful or unlawful under the official rules of engagement and British law (as they both appeared at that time).

4) If there were strong evidence that some or all of the killings were unlawful, I suspect that there would indeed be an official inquiry (just as there has been into the Bloody Sunday incident). It's likely, however, that there's no more than a slight suspicion that some of the killings may have been unlawful. In that context, it's clearly not in the public interest to hold an official inquiry, far less to pursue criminal prosecutions.


Other than that though..... (as they say )

 

[Strawberry]

4) If there were strong evidence that some or all of the killings were unlawful, I suspect that there would indeed be an official inquiry (just as there has been into the Bloody Sunday incident). It's likely, however, that there's no more than a slight suspicion that some of the killings may have been unlawful. In that context, it's clearly not in the public interest to hold an official inquiry, far less to pursue criminal prosecutions.

The Ballymurphy massacre was a disgusting atrocity, on the same level as Bloody Sunday but Derry has always had an advantage over Belfast when it comes to getting its own way.

Your comforting notion that the government would have ordered an inquiry if there was any reason to believe the killings were unlawful rather falls down in face of the fact that an inquiry into the IRA's bombing of the Le Mons House Hotel in Belfast was also ruled out. I hope you have no doubts that when the IRA planted a bomb in a hotel and then sprayed the fleeing victims with burning petrol that their actions were unlawful?

 

[platonov]

Suddenly I'm on a Daily Mail thread

Hmmm, where to start......? How about:

1) These were/are not "unsolved" killings: known identifiable members of the Parachute Regiment shot dead a number of people. The only "unknown" element is whether the shootings were lawful or not.

2) Members of a recognised army wearing a uniform have a different status from paramilitary combatants, and different obligations/allowances. That's especially the case when the recognised army is fighting in a guerilla war against paramilitaries.
3) As mentioned in point (1), the sole issue for potential resolution is whether or not any or all of the fatal shootings were lawful or unlawful under the official rules of engagement and British law (as they both appeared at that time).

4) If there were strong evidence that some or all of the killings were unlawful, I suspect that there would indeed be an official inquiry (just as there has been into the Bloody Sunday incident). It's likely, however, that there's no more than a slight suspicion that some of the killings may have been unlawful. In that context, it's clearly not in the public interest to hold an official inquiry, far less to pursue criminal prosecutions.


Other than that though..... (as they say )

What a verbose (as is your wont) No.
I suspect the UK gov dont think the republicans will take your word for it

ps
You might want to check with the grapevine, you are off message – it wasnt a recognised army .. fighting in a guerilla war against paramilitaries

It was a ..........

[google is still your friend I presume ]

 

[LondonJohn]

The Ballymurphy massacre was a disgusting atrocity, on the same level as Bloody Sunday but Derry has always had an advantage over Belfast when it comes to getting its own way.

Your comforting notion that the government would have ordered an inquiry if there was any reason to believe the killings were unlawful rather falls down in face of the fact that an inquiry into the IRA's bombing of the Le Mons House Hotel in Belfast was also ruled out. I hope you have no doubts that when the IRA planted a bomb in a hotel and then sprayed the fleeing victims with burning petrol that their actions were unlawful?

Nope, that's wooly thinking, a false equivalence, and a strawman argument. I have no doubt that the Le Mons House Hotel killings were unlawful. But that's obviously not a factor behind the decision not to order an inquiry into the incident. I suspect that in this instance, the sticking point is whether there is a realistic chance of identifying the perpetrators, and whether there is a realistic chance of bringing them to justice.

Did it not occur to you that the two inquiries (Ballymurphy and Le Mons House Hotel) might have been refused for different reasons?

PS: To further pick up on something you mentioned above, it's not so much a case of whether there's a "reason to believe" that the Ballymurphy killings may have been unlawful. Rather, it's a case of whether there's sufficient (or indeed any) solid, reliable evidence that might reasonably prove that the killings were unlawful. Current or contemporaneous "beliefs" are of virtually no value in terms of seeking judicial resolutions, and are certainly no justification for holding public inquiries if they are not supported by hard evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

What a verbose (as is your wont) No.
I suspect the UK gov dont think the republicans will take your word for it

ps
You might want to check with the grapevine, you are off message – it wasnt a recognised army .. fighting in a guerilla war against paramilitaries

It was a ..........

[google is still your friend I presume ]

It wasn't a "No".

My contention is that if hard evidence ever turned up (e.g. radio recordings, confessions, specific forensic evidence) to indicate that the killings were unlawful, there would be a public inquiry - followed probably by a consideration of criminal charges. But I contend that no such evidence currently exists, hence there's no justification for an inquiry.

The rest of your post I disregard (wouldn't want to be accused of more verbosity )

 

[platonov]

It wasn't a "No".

My contention is that if hard evidence ever turned up (e.g. radio recordings, confessions, specific forensic evidence) to indicate that the killings were unlawful, there would be a public inquiry - followed probably by a consideration of criminal charges. But I contend that no such evidence currently exists, hence there's no justification for an inquiry.
The rest of your post I disregard (wouldn't want to be accused of more verbosity )

Wow

So you think that the various murders/killings [Ballymurphy is but one example] that can be laid at the door of [UK] state forces or their proxies can be defined out of existence by the same state ( or you ! ) and this will form the basis of the 'legacy issues' deal between the state and the republicans.

That is even more naive than my Storey / Kelly suggestion.

May I enquire – are you familiar with the letters page of the Daily Telegraph ?