Appendix 5

The photograph below illustrates the vulnerability of the men, women and children attending the funerals of the Gibraltar Three when under attack from Loyalist paramilitary Michael Stone.

Appendix 6

Diplock Courts.

Non-jury Diplock courts were established to deal with terror related cases. For justification of the implementation of this process the Authorities cite fear of intimidation of jurors by paramilitaries and / or bias by jurors selected from either side of the community. It is our view the Diplock court should not have applied in this case. None of the defendants were members of any paramilitary or political organisation - legal or illegal. The threat of jury intimidation was non existing.

Appendix 7

Use of hidden witnesses.

This was the fifth in a series of related trials. The practice of using hidden witnesses was well established and endorsed by the then Lord Chief Justice Hutton. This practice suggested the witnesses may have something to fear from the defendants.

In this instance the practice completely changed the atmosphere of the court and, coupled with the use of the Diplock Courts, cast the defendants in a completely wrong light.

Appendix 8

Prior to this case I would not have attached much importance or weight to an accused's right of silence. I would have subscribed to the Authorities' simplistic approach "If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about". This case was to transform my opinion.

Articles 3 and 4 refer to two periods of judicial processing:

a) When questioned by the police.

b) When the accused eventually appear in court.

In the first instance the police inform the accused that they have the right of silence but if they exercise that right it can be used against them i.e. ‘answer all our questions since refusal will be taken as proof of guilt'.

The Articles were relatively new when this case was investigated therefore lawyers were unsure as how to interpret them. One of the anomalies of this case relates to the fact some of the early 'Casement Accused' had the full protection of the right to silence, but men arrested at a later date but for the same offence had their rights curtailed.

On March 16th 1988 a couple of men were arrested just after the incident at Casement Park and over the following weeks many more were arrested and charged. Sean, Pat and Michael were arrested almost one year later. Sean and Michael were arrested in February 1989 by which time the fate of the two soldiers was widely known. Sean, Pat and Michael were not present when the soldiers were killed. In their own mind they did not feel guilt for the did not knowingly do anything to bring the deaths about. When the men were first questioned by police they stated they did not know the soldiers would be shot dead. However, in light of the fact everyone had by then knew of the fate of the two soldiers it became increasingly difficult for the three men to keep repeating their ignorance. It then became relatively easy for highly experienced detectives to suggest the three men may, at some stage, have thought "The IRA will kill these two". The three men, knowing they didn't supply weapons or encouragement towards the death of the soldiers, could not see any danger in admitting They, the accused, may have "Thought the IRA might kill these two soldiers".

We respectfully submit the Director of Public Prosecutions did not have to prove guilt but instead had the easy task of inferring a thought may or must have entered the men's minds.

14