Adams seriously suggests putting jurors into a protection programme…

In the Times of London Irish edition he’s quoted thusly

“States throughout the world protect and value the basic right to a jury trial,” he said.

“Juries must of course be protected in carrying out their work and this can be achieved in a number of ways including having an anonymous jury, screening the jury from public view, protecting the jury during the trial, or locating the jury in a different place from where the trial is being held with communication by video link.

“Many states hear difficult cases without removing the right to a jury trial.”

Mr Adams does invoke a serious principle here. Ireland has been criticised for retaining non jury trials by Amnesty and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the UN Human Rights Committee.

The obvious self interest (the Murphy conviction has stirred up controversy north and south) aside, as one respondent on the Claire Byrne on Saturday show put it, who wants to be compelled as a juror against the organised crime syndicate behind the Regency Hotel shootings?

Or indeed, what remains of the active ingredients of the Provisional IRA: whether it’s a butterfly or no butterfly?

, , ,

  • Gingray

    Could you not just have added this as a comment to your previous post?

  • chrisjones2

    “States throughout the world protect and value the basic right to a jury trial,”

    Not true actually. In the UK it has been a fetish but other states eg Germany often run major criminal trials without juries and with a 3 Judge Panel. Sound familiar? And ECHR has repeatedly said that this is a matter for member states so long as the trial is fair.

    Aside his floundering responses to impudent follow up questions from incredulous journalists when he effectively denied there was a gang problem in Ireland, Gerry then nearly lost the plot in his answers which verged on abuse

    This is all Gerry waffle with no policy or thought and simply designed to protect the Party’s Old Comrades who are now engaged in various private enterprise activities that might put them in need of a lawyer or two or at risk of an appearance in the SCC. I mean how dare the police and prosecutors even consider this when they are all strong ‘supporters of the Peace Process (TM) ” and Good Republicans (TM)”

    SFs new commitment to international standards of justice may also seem somewhat odd to the victims of abuse by PIRA and SF members who were denied access to courts to see justice delivered. Then there are the families of all those murdered after kangaroo courts, the children shot out of hand in West Belfast for ‘anti-social activities’ – remember them them Gerry? And Paul Quinn and Kevin McGuigan? Who sat on the Juries there Gerry?

    Still on the positive side at least it took away from the reporting of the Booby Sands cock up in Dublin. The gap between SF in Ireland and the old guard in de Nurth grows ever wider

  • MainlandUlsterman

    I wonder if the importance of protecting jurors crossed his mind at all when he headed up an organisation that systematically intimidated them, to the point where jury trials had to be suspended? Yet more breathtaking lack of self awareness.

  • mickfealty

    Really sorry folks for the double thread. I only did this one because the first wasn’t showing on the front page after I thought I’d published it. Then, I thought I’d set this one to private only. I think caching of the site is working in some strangely weird and wonderful way…

  • Robin Keogh

    I think he correctly far more focused on today and the society we live in now and how we would like that society to evolve into the future.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    you’d have thought though given his past there would be some subjects he might be best advised to avoid – respecting juries being just one of his smorgasbord of “can’t really go there” areas.

  • Robin Keogh

    Not really. He is an elected rep of the people with one of the biggest mandates in country, and leader of the most popular party in the country. It is quite proper that he comment on any and all issues pertaining to the structures and operations of the country’s institutions. associating that with a past either real or imagined is irrelevant.

  • MainlandUlsterman


    As for the limitations within which he now operates, they are the limitations of his credibility – a bed he made for himself.

  • Robin Keogh

    I dont even know what that means sorry

  • chrisjones2

    …… err so we dont have a major problem with organised crime today

  • chrisjones2

    Absolutely…… its just that when he makes a pigs a**se of himself he and the Party need to realise it.

    Anyway, let the people decide

  • chrisjones2

    I did too …

  • aquifer

    So instead of interning members of murderous conspiracies against public order, we are to put jurors in ‘protective’ custody. And for how long are they to be kept after the trial to protect them from the verdict of the paramilitary gangs?

    Safer simpler and cheaper to let a team of judges sift out the truth.

    And weigh the credibility of witnesses like Mr Adams.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Just that the context within which audiences hear his words is one of awareness of his former activities directing terrorism. That there are topics on which he cannot now credibly opine, therefore, is a limitation on his political reach that is entirely of his own making.

  • Robin Keogh

    There is no evidence of the claims you make so maybe people are comfortable with whole ‘innocent unti proven guilty’ inconvenience. His limitations have stretched him far enough to lead the largest political movement on the Island along with moving physical force republicanism into the political process. He has a mandate to comment on anything he wishes. Credibilty is subjective.