NAME AND SHAME' A RISKY PLOY
Name and shame' a risky ploy
IF he is to succeed in his "name and shame" expose of Good Friday Agreement beneficiaries who have reverted to type by participating in brutal beatings - contrary to the conditions of their release from prison - then Conservative MP Andrew Hunter must catch the eye of the speaker during Northern Ireland Question Time today.
Considering the widespread political ramifications, that may not be easy. But if not today, then very soon an opportunity will present itself for Mr Hunter to use the shield of parliamentary privilege to name the men he believes are guilty.
If he does, considerable embarrassment will follow for those parties who are fully involved in the Stormont process on the basis that they, and by implication the paramilitary groups they represent, have turned their backs on violence.
Assembly participants are pledged to commit themselves to non-violence. Where will people like Gerry Adams and David Ervine stand if it is ever proved that organisations they represent are shooting people in the legs and breaking bodies with cudgels in retribution for so-called social misdemeanours?
Obvious risks attach to Mr Hunter's course of action. However good his information may be, there is a slim possibility that innocent people will be named and targeted by their enemies.
More salient is the possibility that the proper legal process will be prejudiced, to the advantage of the law-breakers. Anyone named tomorrow could make the case that their right to a fair trial has been undermined, making it virtually impossible to deal with them in the courts.
The objection against naming so-called punishment beaters would carry more weight if the RUC was on the verge of bringing them to justice. But because of the difficulties inherent in finding witnesses prepared to speak out against people who terrorise their own communities, that is more easily said than done.
The likelihood is that the men named by Andrew Hunter and his associates with regard to punishment attacks will never be brought to court. So few of them ever are.
That is the reality and Mr Hunter knows it. What motivates him is a sense of frustration over the impunity with which released prisoners can return to terror, and the lack of accountability on the part of those who represent them politically. That frustration is shared by many Ulster people who believe that the worst elements in society have been given the best deal, and unless something is done about it, public confidence in the peace process will continue to be eroded.
The situation is more complicated with regard to people suspected of involvement in the Omagh bombing. Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan, and his counterpart in the Garda, are still hopeful that successful prosecutions can be brought. That would be the ideal conclusion to their extensive investigations.
But if the perpetrators were to be arrested in the Republic, extradition proceedings might have to be brought before they could face trial under the Diplock system. The worry must be that it is the extradition process which could be compromised by naming names, since their fate in Northern Ireland would be in the hands of judges who are supposedly immune to outside influences.
Imagine the fury and bad feeling which would follow a failed extradition application on both sides of the border, particularly if the finger of blame was to be pointed at Mr Hunter and his "name and shame" colleagues.
The last thing they, or anyone else wants, is for those responsible for the Omagh bombing to escape justice.
IF he is to succeed in his "name and shame" expose of Good Friday Agreement beneficiaries who have reverted to type by participating in brutal beatings - contrary to the conditions of their release from prison - then Conservative MP Andrew Hunter must catch the eye of the speaker during Northern Ireland Question Time today.
Considering the widespread political ramifications, that may not be easy. But if not today, then very soon an opportunity will present itself for Mr Hunter to use the shield of parliamentary privilege to name the men he believes are guilty.
If he does, considerable embarrassment will follow for those parties who are fully involved in the Stormont process on the basis that they, and by implication the paramilitary groups they represent, have turned their backs on violence.
Assembly participants are pledged to commit themselves to non-violence. Where will people like Gerry Adams and David Ervine stand if it is ever proved that organisations they represent are shooting people in the legs and breaking bodies with cudgels in retribution for so-called social misdemeanours?
Obvious risks attach to Mr Hunter's course of action. However good his information may be, there is a slim possibility that innocent people will be named and targeted by their enemies.
More salient is the possibility that the proper legal process will be prejudiced, to the advantage of the law-breakers. Anyone named tomorrow could make the case that their right to a fair trial has been undermined, making it virtually impossible to deal with them in the courts.
The objection against naming so-called punishment beaters would carry more weight if the RUC was on the verge of bringing them to justice. But because of the difficulties inherent in finding witnesses prepared to speak out against people who terrorise their own communities, that is more easily said than done.
The likelihood is that the men named by Andrew Hunter and his associates with regard to punishment attacks will never be brought to court. So few of them ever are.
That is the reality and Mr Hunter knows it. What motivates him is a sense of frustration over the impunity with which released prisoners can return to terror, and the lack of accountability on the part of those who represent them politically. That frustration is shared by many Ulster people who believe that the worst elements in society have been given the best deal, and unless something is done about it, public confidence in the peace process will continue to be eroded.
The situation is more complicated with regard to people suspected of involvement in the Omagh bombing. Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan, and his counterpart in the Garda, are still hopeful that successful prosecutions can be brought. That would be the ideal conclusion to their extensive investigations.
But if the perpetrators were to be arrested in the Republic, extradition proceedings might have to be brought before they could face trial under the Diplock system. The worry must be that it is the extradition process which could be compromised by naming names, since their fate in Northern Ireland would be in the hands of judges who are supposedly immune to outside influences.
Imagine the fury and bad feeling which would follow a failed extradition application on both sides of the border, particularly if the finger of blame was to be pointed at Mr Hunter and his "name and shame" colleagues.
The last thing they, or anyone else wants, is for those responsible for the Omagh bombing to escape justice.
Further Information
Publisher: NEWS LETTER
Ref: NL/180
Published Date: 20-Jan-99
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.