Posted by Jim on February 9, 2019
——————————————————————–
Saoradh’s view of the conviction in a non-jury court this week of its
former party chairperson in Dublin, Kevin Braney, on the word of a paid
informer.
——————————————————————–
At every stage in the struggle against the occupation of this country,
revolutionaries have been met with harsh injustices, and today was no
different. The widely condemned ‘Special Court’ ruled that it has
accepted the word of paid perjurer and liar David Cullen for a second
time.
The ‘Special Court’, although long in its existence, has been operating
in its current form since 1972. The Dublin government took the steps to
establish the court due to the rise in republican resistance since the
introduction of British crown forces onto the streets of the occupied
six counties. Knowing the difficulties the state would face in finding a
jury to convict a person charged with what they deemed ‘republican
offenses’, the state withdrew the jury from the court and appointed
itself judge, jury and if needed, executioner.
The court has since been used mainly to charge republican political
activists and those who refuse to accept the status quo, and this was
never more apparent than today when former Saoradh Dublin Craobh
chairperson Kevin Braney was convicted on the word of paid supergrass
David Cullen. What’s more significant is that Cullen was no stranger to
this case. Long before there was even a hint of accusations being made
against Braney, it was Cullen had found himself sitting in Braney’s
seat. Cullen was initially charged with murder, having being arrested in
possession of a firearm, before he turned state supergrass two days into
his trial.
Dave Cullen had therefore found himself in gaol in March 2013, but after
18 months of living at close quarters with republican prisoners, he was
plucked out of the gaol under the cover of darkness and placed into
protective custody. Armed with the book of evidence from his initial
arrest, Cullen had offered to “fill in any gaps” which might arise in
the states case against his former co accused. The states first attempt
to use Cullen failed miserably, when after over 60 days the trial
collapsed. Having admitted to perjuring himself when asked had he ever
lied in court or interrogation he stunned everyone in the court by
saying he did and exclaiming “I would say anything not to be sitting
over there” pointing towards his former co-accused.
Cullen had also admitted to robbing an employer of 30,000 euro after his
father had gotten him a job in a local garage. When asked how he felt
about it he said he had “absolutely no remorse whatsoever.” Evidence was
also produced that he broke into his fathers house at Christmas knowing
his father was away with his partner and kids, and stole rings and
football jerseys among other things. He also admitted that on another
occasion he had also locked himself in his bathroom while his two young
kids were in the house with his then partner and cut his wrists, leading
to him having to be psychiatrically assessed. This set of circumstances,
in any other other court in the land would be enough to bring the whole
trial down. Not in the ‘Special court’ however. Cullen was allowed to
proceed and his word was eventually accepted by the the three judge
panel who agreed that Cullen was indeed a liar and deceptive but “he was
honest and forthright about his capacity for dishonesty” allowing them
to take his word because this time he was being honest!
The trial eventually collapsed due to the Free State’s failure to
disclose that Cullen had actually told his handlers he didn’t like one
of the men he was giving evidence against. This part of the statement
was not given to the accused and the man in question only received the
vital piece of information as closing speeches were made, when Cullens
statement appeared in another trial but this time this segment of the
statement wasn’t redacted. The trial sensationally collapsed when the
trial judge, who’s courtroom was now full of journalists who had up to
that point refused to report on the case once a supergrass was being
used, was left with no option but to do what should have been done weeks
before, collapse the case, due to the prosecution’s blatant attempt to
obstruct the flow of disclosure.
Cullen was rolled out again two years later, this time he wasn’t such a
willing witness. When questioned by the defense team, he admitted to
having no desire to be there and that the only reason he was in the
court at all was because he had been told by his handlers that he faced
being “kicked out of the Witness Protection Programme if I didn’t help
secure a prosecution”. This time the I’s were dotted and the T’s were
crossed, and two men were handed down life sentences on his word.
Forward on another 18 months and Cullen was back in the court again,
this time to try and convict Braney. The DPP had ruled three years
earlier that Kevin Braney had no case to answer, but having seen how
Cullen’s word was accepted in the previous trial, they decided to cast
the rod again. Kevin Braney, a constant thorn in Free State’s side at
the time was their number one target. Kevin could be seen the length and
breadth of the country at protests for Republican Prisoners,
commemorating fallen Irish revolutionaries or taking a lead in social
activism, such as feeding the homeless from the steps of the GPO.
Cullen meanwhile, who had received a 3 and a half year term for
possession of a weapon, was somehow released long before that sentence
was completed, even though evidence was given that he had been caught
with contraband while in protective custody. Somehow, Cullen who had
received an additional sentence for this contraband, had been released
before the first sentence was up, even though the sentences were to run
concurrently. Another sweetener for the Supergrass.
Details emerged in the court of the life Cullen was living within the
Witness Protection Programme. He was convicted of harassing a girl he
had met while living at his new location. The State, who had tried to
get any details of Cullen’s current life omitted from the court, were
forced to admit that Cullen had posted pictures of the girl on social
media platforms advising people not to contact her and used derogatory
remarks to attack the girl. The girl in question had also given a
statement that she came home to find faeces on her front door with the
word ‘slut’ spelled out. Cullen claimed to be madly in love with the
girl had asked her for a second chance but was issued with an order to
stay away from the girl and fined 500 euro. He refused to pay the fine but
amazingly the Free State decided to foot the bill, citing the fact that
not paying the money could possibly blow Cullen’s cover. The moral
hazard created by this decision should not be underestimated – the
message which was sent from the State to Cullen is that he can go on to
commit other crimes, including against vulnerable people, and that the
State will not allow him to be held responsible.
More details of Cullen’s benefits scheme began to emerge. While
homelessness is the main issue all across the 32 counties, Cullen,
living in another country, has no such worries. He not only receives
100% subsidies on housing, food and drink, he also gets an additional
monthly allowance for socialising while also collecting the full weekly
social welfare allowance. But Cullen’s dishonesty don’t stop with
stealing from his own family and avoiding the payment of fines; he has
also received thousands of euro rent allowance which was to passed on to
the “host country” where he now resides. Instead of passing it on he
kept the large monthly sum for himself. The Free State was again forced
to admit they cannot get the monies owed from Cullen and again have had
to foot the bill for Cullen’s dishonesty. It’s worth noting at this
point that at the time of Cullen’s arrest in 2013, his former landlord
gave evidence that in the two years Cullen lived in his apartment,
Cullen had only paid two moths rent, even though he was receiving full
state rent allowance, and left the homeowner thousands of euro out of
pocket.
A letter to the ‘host nation’ from a driving instructor was also
produced in court. This letter gave evidence that Cullen had kept the
money given to him to learn how to drive. The driving instructor
explained how she became afraid of Cullen and his threatening behavior
towards her, leading to her removing herself as his driving instructor.
A member of the Witness Protection Programme also revealed how Cullen
had contacted someone assigned to look after his needs saying he had no
food and wanted money to “stock up on supplies”. On arriving at Cullen’s
house, the handler noticed Cullen had removed the shelves from the
fridge, and that he then admitted to hiding the food in a different room
in another petty attempt to deceive his handlers. A note was also read
out to which the host nation issued Cullen with a ‘final warning’ as to
his behavior.
In complete contrast, Kevin Braney is a solid Republican political
activist, a devoted husband and loving father to 7 children. Kevin was
held for 2 years in 2013 on two separate trumped up charges and was
acquitted on both. It was a case of ‘internment by remand’ – where an
activist is held in gaol awaiting trial for years, but where the
prosecution has no credible evidence to present to the court, and so the
period of being held on remand is used as an unofficial from of
internment without trial. It is one of a number of dirty tricks used
against Republicans who have dared to fight back against the pretence
that Ireland’s constitutional position has been resolved.
Kevin’s involvement in political activity was born out of the desire to
see the re-unification of this country, and through his efforts, Kevin
has offered far more to the promise of the just and free society
outlined in the 1916 Proclamation of the Republic and the Democratic
Programme of the 1st Dáil than the agents of the neo-colonial state who
have hauled him in and set him up. On Friday last he was convicted on
the word of a self-proclaimed perjurer, liar and thief. That is not
something that should just worry Republican activists, but all sections
of society who believe in the very concept of justice.
Posted by Jim on
By eirigi
Republicans swept the board in the general election of 1918, consigning
the constitutional nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party to history.
The decisive electoral victory was also a clear declaration that people,
in their droves, had abandoned the minimalist demand of Home Rule and
now sought a Republic. At the outset of 1919, what are often considered
to be the first shots of the Black and Tan War were fired by Dan Breen
and his comrades at Soloheadbeg, Co. Tipperary.
As armed actions intensified in the months that followed, the Dáil moved
to officially establish the Dáil Courts on 18 June 1919. The courts
began to function effectively towards the end of the year. In North Co.
Dublin, Thomas Peppard, Intelligence Officer in the Fingal Brigade IRA,
later documented how “the courts were well supported by the people and
the British Petty Sessions Courts and suchlike were almost completely
deserted”.
Sean M. O’Duffy acted as Registrar for the Courts for the South City of
Dublin from their inception in 1919. He described how the courts were
held in various places, but particularly at 41 Parnell Square, and
“usually at night”. Judges were appointed and plaintiffs, defendants
and witnesses called. Many of those who were central to the day-to-day
running of the courts were IRA members and the risk of raids and capture
by the crown forces was constant.
According to O’Duffy, all types of offenders were brought before the
courts, including “dairymen who had put too much water in their milk
before delivery”. Many of those convicted of more serious offences were
deported. Most cases, however, dealt with “processes for civil bill” –
i.e. non-criminal claims by plaintiffs regarding finances or property
against the defending parties.
The courts in Dublin operated secretly at first, but by the time of the
Truce in 1921 they begun to operate openly. Their headquarters in the
city by then was at a premises on Wellington Quay. By late 1921,
O’Duffy was full-time organiser for the courts in south Dublin and
surrounding counties. At that stage, the courts operated on a basis of
broad participation by different sectors of society. In theory, at
least one TD, local Councillors, members of the republican movement
from Sinn Féin, the IRA and Cumann na mBan, as well as trade union
representatives, and a cleric of each denomination, were to take part
in a local court’s proceedings.
The courts were organised throughout the country at the parish,
district, circuit and supreme levels, depending on the seriousness of
the offence. Some of the titles of these courts might jar with
republicans and other activists today. For among the lineal descendants
of these courts in the Twenty-Six County state corruption and classism
is rife. Nevertheless, the Republican Courts of 1919-21 fulfilled a
vital role during the Black and Tan War.
A memorandum issued by Austin Stack during the lifetime of the courts
strikes to the heart of their importance. Minister for Home Affairs in
the Dáil during the Black and Tan War, and later a member of the
anti-Treaty IRA during the Civil War, Stack instructed how:
“…when Republican Courts have been established … and they are in a
position to deal with all the cases coming before them, attention must
be turned to the enemy courts. They must be rigorously boycotted… any
person who takes part in the proceedings of an enemy Court … will be
deemed guilty of assisting the enemy in time of war”.
The idea was to first of all win the trust of the people by acting as
mediators of their daily, and often minor, legal troubles. The second
objective was to remove a key pillar of the British state in Ireland,
namely the administration of “justice” at the local level. The sense of
autonomy and grassroots democracy created by the Dáil Courts was vital
in maintaining a vibrant republican movement, which was ultimately able
to bring the British Empire to the negotiating table. There is plenty
that we can learn today from the history of the Republican Court of a
century ago.
Posted by Jim on
A committee to protect the 1998 Good Friday Agreement has been
established by a group of leading Irish Americans in the wake of what
they describe as the erosion of the deal by Tories, “almost to the
point of dismissing it as irrelevant even though it is a binding
international peace agreement”.
The new ‘Ad Hoc Committee’ has sent a letter to British Prime Minister
Theresa May and 26 County Taoiseach Leo Varadkar outlining their
concerns regarding the ongoing Brexit negotiations.
They warned that a border would “resurrect the memories” of the
militarisation in the north of Ireland during the conflict.
The committee involves US Republicans and Democrats, and includes two
former US Senators, five former US Ambassadors, leaders of prominent
Irish American organisations, and former US Senator Gary Hart, who acted
as the Special Envoy for the North for then US Secretary of State John
Kerry.
“The recent decision by the Prime Minister and the Parliament to seek to
re-open the withdrawal agreement and find an alternative to the backstop
has put the Good Friday Agreement [GFA] into play. This alarms us,” said
former member of Congress James Walsh, a co-chair of the Ad-Hoc
Committee.
“The backstop is the insurance policy that protects the GFA and the GFA
cannot be used as a bargaining chip as the Brexit advocates search for
an alternative arrangement.”
Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, who also co-chairs the committee,
noted “pro-Brexit advocates have been diminishing the importance of the
GFA almost to the point of dismissing it. This really is short-sighted,
and the ongoing debate is only resurrecting old animosities and
stereotypes. The people of Ireland, North and South overwhelmingly
supported the GFA in the 1998 referendum. They know what is at stake.”
At an event in the US capitol building on Wednesday night, senior
figures in Congress separately warned Britain that its hope of striking
a trade deal with the US after Brexit would be in jeopardy if the Good
Friday Agreement is compromised.
“If the British want to consider any type of trade agreement with the
United States it is important that the soft border is maintained,”
Republican congressman Peter King said at an event to mark 100 years of
the Dáil. “What influence we have, we will use it,” he said.
His warning was echoed by Richard Neal, the Massachusetts congressman
who was recently appointed chairman of the Ways and Means committee. His
committee has sweeping powers over US trade policy, and would have
ultimate oversight of any trade agreement signed between the US and
Britain after Brexit.
Mr Neal said that concerns about the Good Friday Agreement would “weigh
on his mind” if the committee were considering such a deal.
The US is Britain’s main trading partner outside the EU bloc, and
exports to the US are worth an estimated 100 billion pounds to the
British economy each year.
Philadelphia congressman Brendan Boyle pointed to the difficulties of
getting international trade deals through Congress in the past. He said:
“Regardless of the Irish dimension, the idea that suddenly there is
going to be overnight a big trade deal with the UK really just isn’t
practical.”
Former congressman Bruce Morrison also warned Britain about the
difficulties ahead in negotiating a trade agreement with the US,
something Brexit supporters see as a benefit of leaving the EU customs
union.
“I think the British have made a lot of assumptions about trade
agreements with the US and with other countries and frankly, from a
hard-headed economic standpoint, dealing with the EU is a lot more
important than dealing with Britain, so I think they have an uphill slog
on that,” Mr Morrison said.
Posted by Jim on
There are signs of a growing acceptance in London that a referendum on
unity in the Six Counties will be required in the circumstances of
Britain’s departure from the EU.
The future status of the North of Ireland is uncertain as Britain gets
ready to leave the EU without a deal next month. The BBC has reported
that several senior Tory cabinet ministers now believe that a hard
Brexit would lead to a vote on Irish unification within the Six County
area.
The prospect of such a a ‘border poll’ is set out in the 1998 Good
Friday Agreement, but it requires explicit approval from the British
government before it can take place.
One senior Tory minister told the BBC this week the prospect is now
“very real” and “very much on the mind” of British Prime Minister
Theresa May.
“A no-deal Brexit is the way that’s most likely to lead to a border
poll and to people questioning the benefits of being in the United
Kingdom,” they said. “The dial could be moved in those circumstances.”
Two other cabinet ministers “warned” the government of the “dangers” of
“sleepwalking into a border poll”.
They believed that people who are not from a nationalist background
could “react badly” to a no-deal Brexit, especially if it leads to
“serious issues” at the border through Ireland.
They said that said there was an understanding in May’s government that
a vote on unification would be a realistic means of coping with the
“disruption and uncertainty” due to Brexit.
The comments follow a prominent article in The Spectator magazine which
asked if a referendum on Irish unity might be the best way to solve the
Brexit border issue. The London-based publication is traditionally
associated with influencing right-wing British opinion. The piece by
David G Green, director of right-wing think tank Civitas, noted that 56
per cent of the north’s electorate backed remaining in the EU.
Mr Green speculates that a similar proportion of voters might vote for
Irish unity if given the opportunity.
Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald has said that it would be “grossly
reckless and irresponsible” of the British government to allow Brexit to
compromise the Irish peace process.
Speaking on The Andrew Marr Show, Ms McDonald insisted that the backstop
— a previously agreed mechanism to prevent the remilitarisation of the
border area — was the “bottom line” and that Ireland must protect its
national interest.
She said: “As the Brexit drama comes to a climax, we have to accept
there is a possibility, if not a probability, of a hard Brexit crash and
in those circumstances, we believe that the disruption and damage to the
island of Ireland would be such that, don’t imagine that we will
philosophically take it on the chin.
“Put simply, if the border in Ireland cannot be mitigated, cannot be
managed in the short term, well then you put the question democratically
in the hands of the people and allow them to remove the border.
“The backstop is the bottom line.
“On the issue of the border poll, there’s no point us burying our heads
in the sand and wish away a hard Brexit.
“We prepare for the worst scenario and protect our national interest.
One of the biggest symbols of success of the peace process is that
people can travel unimpeded over the border.”
Ms McDonald reiterated her challenge to the Dublin government to convene
an Irish unity forum and said unionists have to start planning for “all
eventualities”.
She added: “Obviously, our unionist brothers and sisters need to be part
of planning a new Ireland, their first option, of course, is to maintain
the union with Britain and we respect that, but as one ex-leader of the
DUP put it, they need to start now planning for all eventualities and
unionism needs a Plan B.”
Ms McDonald has said that the growing likelihood of a no-deal Brexit has
pushed the idea of Irish reunification to the forefront of politics, but
she believes mindset is the biggest stumbling block.
She added: “The Good Friday Agreement provides a route to remove the
border once and for all. Regardless of Brexit, there will be a unity
referendum.
“In our time we now have an opportunity denied to generations – a
peaceful and democratic route to Irish unity; to build a new and united
Ireland.
“There are those who believe Irish unity is a pipe dream.
“Some old wives’ tale about the four green fields, some don’t yet
appreciate the huge opportunity that Irish unity can present for all of
us socially and economically, and those that are hostile to the idea.
“There are those who are not unionists but part of the establishment
here in the south who might be hostile to the idea, or anything that
upsets the apple cart, and those people are in the minority, the vast
majority of people know that Ireland is changing and needs to change
more.”
Posted by Jim on
BBC News Article Feb. 8, 2008
Q&A: Bloody Sunday inquiry
This week it was revealed that the cost for the Bloody Sunday inquiry now stood at £181.2m, making it the longest and most costly in British legal history. The BBC’s Ireland correspondent Denis Murray looks at Lord Saville’s probe into events in Northern Ireland more than 30 years ago. Why is the inquiry taking place? The Bloody Sunday enquiry was set up in 1998 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair to re-examine the events of 30 January 1972, when soldiers of the Parachute Regiment shot dead 14 people attending a civil rights march in Londonderry. The tribunal chairman is Lord Saville of Newdigate, alongside two other judges from Australia and Canada. Bloody Sunday is one of the best-remembered events in the entire history of the Northern Ireland Troubles. It was regarded certainly by the Catholic population as no less than mass murder, and badly damaged Britain’s reputation abroad. The British Embassy in Dublin was burned to the ground by rioters three days later. An initial inquiry under Lord Widgery was regarded by the Catholic community as a whitewash. The decision to hold a new inquiry was based on “the weight of new material available”. What developments have taken place? Lord Saville made his opening statement in April 1998, and the inquiry’s oral hearings began at the Guildhall in Derry, in March 2000, with an opening statement by counsel to the inquiry, Christopher Clarke QC. This alone lasted up to the end of June, becoming the longest opening in UK legal history. At one stage, the tribunal moved to the Central Hall, Westminster, after the Court of Appeal ruled that the evidence of soldier witnesses should not be heard in Derry because of fears for their safety. Some of the soldier witnesses gave evidence from behind a screen, visible only to the three judges and legal teams. The first witness was heard in November 2000, and the last in January 2005. Why has it taken so long and cost so much? Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward, in a written parliamentary answer earlier this week, said his receiving of the tribunal’s completed report was not “imminent.” A spokesman for the tribunal pointed to the sheer scale of the operation – 2,500 witness statements, of whom 922 were called to give direct evidence. One of those witnesses was Martin McGuinness, now deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, who accepted in evidence that he was the second-in-command of the Derry Brigade of the IRA at the time of Bloody Sunday. There were also 160 volumes of evidence, containing an estimated 20-30 million words, plus 121 audio tapes and 110 video tapes. What is the current situation? The tribunal spokesperson said they stood by their last news release in August 2005 which said the “very large quantity of material” meant “it is not possible…to give any firm estimate of when the report is likely to be finished”. Most of the cost is in legal fees, but the way it was run was used as a template for both the inquest into the Omagh bombing of 1998, and the Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons expert David Kelly. The cost is obviously way beyond what the government had expected, and means that other inquiries into events of the past in Northern Ireland – such as the Billy Wright Inquiry, which started last year – are likely to have much tighter purse strings. Do the relatives think it will all be worth it? Jean Hegarty, whose brother Kevin McElhinney was one of those killed on Bloody Sunday, says she will not know the answer to that question until the final report is made public. She told me: “It’s not the truth that has cost so much, it’s the lies. If the British army hadn’t lied on Bloody Sunday itself, there would have been no need for this inquiry.” She also said that Lord Saville and his colleagues had done their best to get at the truth. “You can’t put a price on it,” she said. Interested parties will get some months notice of the report’s completion, which will be delivered to the Northern Ireland secretary before publication.