Mr. KING. So the law came into effect in late 1988. Mr. KELLY. Yes. Mr. KING. The so-called incident that your son was charged with occurred in March 1988? Mr. KELLY. That is correct. Mr. KING. Before the law was changed. Mr. KELLY. So the ones that were arrested at a later stage, and had a solicitor, they could exercise the right of silence, but they did so that it is likely to be used against them. In fact, what the legislation did was, it was pretty new at the time. The lawyers, I think, were still, if you want, feeling it out. But the advice to Sean from the solicitor was that he did not have to worry about it, and in fact there was no evidence offered against him and therefore he should not take the stand. And, in fact, that was used as weight of evidence against him, and the other two defendants, their counsel thought otherwise, and thought the two should take the stand, and therefore they were subject to cross-examination. But in the case of Pat Kane where the IQ was not really that great, it was very easy for a skilled prosecutor to, if you want, get out words. I think this case actually illustrates why the protection of the right-of-silence should have been covered fasten if you want instead of diluted it because here the defendants were arrested some year later where the facts of the case had already become widely known, where the defendants did not feel that they had any guilt about them. They did not feel that they were responsible for the deaths of the two soldiers. And therefore when the investigators suggested, well, the thought must have crossed your mind that the IRA might kill these guys, that they did not see the danger and admitting, well, that might have happened. You know, that might have crossed my mind. They did not see that that was enough for the prosecution to say, oh, now, you see, you had thought it out, and therefore the thought entered their mind and therefore you are guilty of the things. In fact, I think this illustrates why the man said, you know, keep your silence. Mr. KING. Mr. Finucane, under the emergency powers obviously the judge is the sole trier of fact and law. So enormous power is in the hands of a judge. Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. Mr. KING. Certainly on questions like silence and inferences that could be drawn from silence. It gives tremendous authority to judges in the north of Ireland. How are these judges chosen, and are there any remedies available if they show a pattern of sustained bias? Mr. FINUCANE. There are no remedies available for any pattern which is systemic in the judgments of the judges of the Diplock Court. The panel of judges currently on the bench in Northern Ireland is appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, I believe, from the senior bar and in consultation with the Secretary of State, I believe. It is a complete appointment process. There is nothing in the nature of an election involved. Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, they do. Mr. KING. I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I certainly want to thank Chairman Smith for putting together this hearing and his staff who worked so hard to get the witnesses here. I want to thank you for traveling here, those of you who traveled from across the sea to join with us today to make the sacrifice to be with us, especially those of you who had relatives who were murdered or Mr. Kelly and Mrs. Kelly's case, whose son has been imprisoned, and Mrs. Groves' daughter was here today, you know, for really showing us how important it is for us as Americans to speak out and be heard, and to use whatever influence we have on the British Government to stop these flagrant violations of human rights and injustice which, unfortunately, have become almost a personification of the society in the north of Ireland. It is not aberrations. They are not deviations. They are really what the society has become because of British rule in Northern Ireland. And your testimony today, and certainly the testimony of the prior panel, has added to our information and has added to our wealth of knowledge. So thank you for being here. The meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon at 2:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening today's hearing and for all the leadership you have shown on the issue of human rights in Northern Ireland and around the world. Today's subcommittee hearing is yet another statement of your commitment to shining the light of justice on human rights abuses wherever they may occur. I also want to thank Chairman Gilman for his longtime support of the human rights struggle in the province. Though the peace process faces a critical juncture, the progress made to date is in no small part due to your bipartisan leadership, drawing together a strong alliance in the fight to deliver not only lasting peace but justice as well to all the communities of Ireland. I also want to thank all the witnesses who have come forward today to testify. The work of groups like the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights has been absolutely essential in bringing world attention to bear on individual cases like that of Roisin McAliskey as well as systemic abuses of basic human rights. I especially want to thank the families who have come so far today to share their stories those like Michael Finucane and James Kelly, who put a human face on the tragic circumstances of sectarian hatred and state-sanctioned abuses of human rights. Mr. Chairman, recent events in Northern Ireland bear tragic witness to the futility of violence. The cowardly murder of two Royal Ulster Constabulary officers by IRA gunmen will serve not to achieve a political goal but simply increase the climate of fear and hostility as we approach the showdowns of the annual marching season. Such actions invite a return to the deadly cycle of retaliation that has long scarred the landscape from Derry to Belfast. We can only hope that the subsequent car bomb attack on two men from the Nationalist community does not signal a complete breakdown of the Loyalist ceasefire. - But we are here today to focus on another kind of violence not the random acts of outlawed paramilitary groups that are easy to denounce, but violence against the rule of law and internationally accepted codes of judicial conduct. Whether it's no-jury Diplock Courts or the exercise of sweeping police powers under the Emergency Provision Act or the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the British government in Northern Ireland observes unacceptable codes of conduct that have drawn the condemnation of numerous human rights groups, many of them with us today. 08/24/97 18:34 202 225 9322 REP KENNEDY 003/003 Congressman Kennedy / Page 2 In my visits to Northern Ireland, most recently last December, I have met and talked to people, young and old, who have been the victims of these practices. On the streets of West Belfast, I met the father of the child whom Roisin McAliskey recently gave birth to under armed guard, and he told me how important it was for the British government to hear from Members of Congress and friends of justice everywhere if Roisin and her newborn were to receive adequate medical attention. There is no question in my mind that the British government heard our pleas, and your pleas, for help. And that's what we're doing here today. Offering our help. This forum allows us to hear from those who have suffered at the hands of loyalist paramilitary groups, at the hands of the IRA, and yes, at the hands of the British security forces. Only by holding up these abuses to the light of day can we hope to correct them. And so, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to hear from our witnesses and thank you once again for convening this important hearing. Statement of Martin O'Brien, Committee on the Administration of Justice Before the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee Hearing on Human Rights in Northern Ireland 24th June 1997 Written Statement Thank you for the invitation to testify today. The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) is an independent human rights organization which draws its membership from across the different communities in Northern Ireland. CAJ was established in 1981 and works to ensure the highest standards in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. In particular we are concerned to ensure that the United Kingdom government lives up to its commitments in international human rights law. We work on behalf of people from all sections of the community and take no position on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. We are opposed to the use of violence for political ends, and are profoundly disturbed by the breakdown in the IRA ceasefire and the return to violence in Northern Ireland. Recent weeks have seen some particularly horrific events, including the kicking to death by loyalists of two young men, one a Catholic and the other a policeman and the shooting dead in the last few days of two policemen by the IRA. It is precisely because this is a very sensitive time in the peace process that we are so appreciative of having the opportunity to speak to you. We feel that international, especially US, involvement in developments in Northern Ireland has been extremely important in the past, and is urgently needed at difficult times like this. We are particularly grateful to Chairman Smith, and to other members of the subcommittee, for their interest in the human rights situation in Northern Ireland. CAJ believes that issues of justice, human rights and fairness are at the heart of the current conflict in Northern Ireland. Peace is only likely to flourish when everyone feels that their rights are respected and protected. We are therefore convinced that a peaceful and lasting resolution of the conflict will require the establishment of mechanisms to ensure that human rights issues are addressed, and that the rights issues has the additional advantage that it can facilitate progress on resolving wider political questions. |