1970 Arms Trial research

BarryDoodles

I’m a first/second year undergraduate in law currently in the process of researching the 1970 Arms Trials.
I’m unable to find the answers to some questions and I’m hoping you could help.

• What court did the trial take place in? Was it the Roundhall?

• What sources should I use?

• What aspects should I concentrate on?

• Should I analyse the outcome or adopt a critical tone?

• Exactly which firearms act did the alleged importation violate?

• Etc

I’ve six thousand words written but seem to have hit a brick wall. I’m hoping that your experiences and knowledge can help me. Any answers or even general tips would be appreciated.

Thank you

walrusgumble

BarryDoodles wrote: »

I’m a first/second year undergraduate in law currently in the process of researching the 1970 Arms Trials.
I’m unable to find the answers to some questions and I’m hoping you could help.

• What court did the trial take place in? Was it the Roundhall?

• What sources should I use?

• What aspects should I concentrate on?

• Should I analyse the outcome or adopt a critical tone?

• Exactly which firearms act did the alleged importation violate?

• Etc

I’ve six thousand words written but seem to have hit a brick wall. I’m hoping that your experiences and knowledge can help me. Any answers or even general tips would be appreciated.

Thank you

archives from the relevant newspapers of the day might be a start, it will answer some of your questions in relation to the act and venue & jurisidiction of the court

have a read on autobiographies & bio's on people like jack lynch,gibbons, haughey and blaney to see their accounts

i think blaney's trial, which started in the district never got on, it was struck out due to alledged bias (judge o'caoimhe , i think, related to dev?, not that that matters) - might have being in the bridewell district court.

read the dail debates of the day following the minister's sacking - that can be found on oireachtas.ie

there is bount to be something in the national archive website

i think magill magazine published the diaries of peter berry - staff in dept of justice at the time, one of the main figures (be careful reading it though for 100% accuracy, in the words of p flynn about a certain builder.......)

i suppose getting a solid grasp of he facts of the case would be the best start before making comments or critics...maybe - one strnage case

IRLConor

BarryDoodles wrote: »

• Exactly which firearms act did the alleged importation violate?

I'd start with Section 17 of the 1925 Act. I don't think there were any relevant amendments by 1970.

Once the arms were in the country, I presume they would also fall foul of Section 2 of the same Act since they wouldn't have a certificate [2 (1)] or permit [2 (3) (a)] nor would they be covered by any of the exceptions inserted at 2 (4) by the 1964 Act.

If they got the arms into the country and then exported them to Northern Ireland or even moved them from one part of the country to another then they'd have to worry about Section 16 of the 1925 Act.

Most/all of those would not apply if they had been authorised by the Minister for Justice or Minister for Defence so I suspect you'll have to examine that aspect too.

I'm not a solicitor/barrister/law student so I'm afraid I can't help you on the other points. I'm just a bit of a firearms law nerd (almost by necessity :rolleyes:).

enry

IRLConor wrote: »

I'd start with Section 17 of the 1925 Act. I don't think there were any relevant amendments by 1970.

Once the arms were in the country, I presume they would also fall foul of Section 2 of the same Act since they wouldn't have a certificate [2 (1)] or permit [2 (3) (a)] nor would they be covered by any of the exceptions inserted at 2 (4) by the 1964 Act.

If they got the arms into the country and then exported them to Northern Ireland or even moved them from one part of the country to another then they'd have to worry about Section 16 of the 1925 Act.

Most/all of those would not apply if they had been authorised by the Minister for Justice or Minister for Defence so I suspect you'll have to examine that aspect too.

I'm not a solicitor/barrister/law student so I'm afraid I can't help you on the other points. I'm just a bit of a firearms law nerd (almost by necessity :rolleyes:).

IRLConor you worry me

IRLConor

enry wrote: »

IRLConor you worry me

The Firearms Act(s) are quite convoluted (unnecessarily so, IMO) and most shooters and many members of the Gardai don't have the foggiest idea what they contain. I help(ed) run a rifle club and the weird paperwork involved kinda forces you to pay some attention to what is and isn't legal. Each time you try to find something out you find another issue that needs resolving. It's a bit like painting, once you do a little bit of one skirting board suddenly you realise you need to do the whole house!

enry

IRLConor wrote: »

The Firearms Act(s) are quite convoluted (unnecessarily so, IMO) and most shooters and many members of the Gardai don't have the foggiest idea what they contain. I help(ed) run a rifle club and the weird paperwork involved kinda forces you to pay some attention to what is and isn't legal. Each time you try to find something out you find another issue that needs resolving. It's a bit like painting, once you do a little bit of one skirting board suddenly you realise you need to do the whole house!

you nolonger worry me

howaya

hello Barry - a topic that remains fascinating to anoraks like me! - to my mind the most exciting source about the Arms Trial affair are the verbatim exchanges recorded in the reports of the Dail Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee reviewed the affair on account of the appropriation of funds involved in the affair: "these terms of reference for the committee were determined on foot of the following resolution of the Dail: That the Committee of Public Accounts shall examine specifically the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid of Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969-70 and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which the moneys from this Vote were, or may have been lodged and shall furnish a separate report on this expenditure as soon as possible." [para.1 of Minutes of Evidence of the PAC, 1970]
Dr Garret Fitzgabble took a lead in the proceedings, and the transcripts of CJ Haughey's appearances give a sense of his sharpness and bravado
Good luck with your research

- given that your interest appears to be in the conduct of the actual trials, rather than the historical event, the fact that the affair was also the subject of an investigation by an Oireachtas committee might allow for an interesting comparison of how the two forums addressed the affair.

Victor

BarryDoodles wrote: »

What court did the trial take place in? Was it the Roundhall?

If you are doing this from a legal points of view, you don't really need to know the building, but need to comment on Circuit Criminal Court, Central Criminal Court, etc.

BarryDoodles

Its not neccassarily from a legal perspective although I am researching under the department of Law. My supervisor seems to want a more historical approach.

I want to be a comprehensive as possible. Hence my need to know the court number and/or the court itself.

I've used the Dail debates and the archives already however the bio's are a fantastic idea. Thank you

I really need to find the Berry diary but as a poor student I can't (wont) subscribe to MaGill magazine.

I'm staying away from the public accounts aspect though...I don't want to imagine what that would entail

Thank you

walrusgumble

I've used the Dail debates and the archives already however the bio's are a fantastic idea. Thank you

I really need to find the Berry diary but as a poor student I can't (wont) subscribe to MaGill magazine.

I'm staying away from the public accounts aspect though...I don't want to imagine what that would entail

Thank you[/QUOTE]


your probably right, would be a lot of he said she said.....

I think surely, you could find Berry's papers somewhere bar MaGill. You never know you might get snippets on the net.

books of Jack Lynch, CHJ, Captain Kelly, Jim Gibbons would be useful. Notice the big gap of difference of opinion authors have with whether or not their subject had or not have knowledge of what was going on. eg CHJ by Bruce Arnold and by Ryle T Dwyer. Whether they were made aware of the situation and did nothing (for whaterver reason, whether or not failure to act was a sign of approval)

ynotdu

Hi i am mostly posting because i love modern history,but i tend to fritter from one topic to another without going in-depth far too often,so i wanted to get email alerts as this post updates,it is a daunting task you have set yourself to find the *truth*:)

one suggestion i have not seen posted is the 30 year rule on the state papers is well up,might they contain anything of help to you?
may,be another poster might point you in the direction as to how to view them online or in some other way?(btw:does anyone know can the state papers be censored even after the 30 year embargo?)

hopefully you will keep us abreast of anything *juicy* you dig up:)

one thing i always wonder is exactly who gave the information to Liam Cosgrave?have to admire him for bringing it to the attention of Jack Lynch and not the press(could you imagine that happening today

its well known that almost every Govt Dept was infiltrated by British intelligence.

the Littlejohn brothers are an example of a few that were caught!

of course it could have come from other sources.

good luck with your research!

walrusgumble

ynotdu wrote: »

Hi i am mostly posting because i love modern history,but i tend to fritter from one topic to another without going in-depth far too often,so i wanted to get email alerts as this post updates,it is a daunting task you have set yourself to find the *truth*:)

one suggestion i have not seen posted is the 30 year rule on the state papers is well up,might they contain anything of help to you?
may,be another poster might point you in the direction as to how to view them online or in some other way?(btw:does anyone know can the state papers be censored even after the 30 year embargo?)

hopefully you will keep us abreast of anything *juicy* you dig up:)

one thing i always wonder is exactly who gave the information to Liam Cosgrave?have to admire him for bringing it to the attention of Jack Lynch and not the press(could you imagine that happening today

its well known that almost every Govt Dept was infiltrated by British intelligence.

the Littlejohn brothers are an example of a few that were caught!

of course it could have come from other sources.

good luck with your research!

admire cosgrove for having the courage to go to lynch? ah come on now. no doubt whatsoever that cosgrave was doing and fully believed that he was doing his duty, particularily with his undying hatered for the ira. but surely he saw this as potentially damaging to ff.

i think the tip off came from the special branch. author suggested that he had some contact with the papers (sunday independent and irish independent - both editors didn't think it would be a good idea) with the story before confronting lynch and one author suggests he went to lynch immediately due to fear of rumours spreading to the papers. probably better check out his own bio

i doubt one would find much knew with the 30 year rule. if certain people had something to hide they would not have being stupid to actually have on record their involvement or lack of, it would likely have being destroyed. special branch files would have being interesting. no chance of find stuff like that on the net unless it was leaked. a dail enquiry was brought out after the trials. look up on jim gibbons i think there are a few differences in what was said at the trial, enquiry and in latter years. find it hard to believe anything this senstive could be allowed out in public domain if there are further documents in existance.

ynotdu

Hi OP,here is a link to the actual transcript from the Dail debate of the 7th of may 1970.

You may have read it?but in case you did,nt it may spark off something you feel is of worth to your project(some of the quotes are priceless!)

It definatly gave me a sense of the depth of feeling of national crisis from the time.

it also reinforces what the poster above has said.

hope its of help in some way.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0246/D.0246.197005070003.html

ynotdu

day December 14 2001,(article is from the Irish Independant) I would bare in mind that Jack Lynch was deceased so no Libel proceedings could be taken by him against RTE or the Indo!

IF Jack Lynch lied to the Dail when he denied his government agreed to supply arms to Northern nationalists in 1970, then Charles Haughey was fitted up on gun-running charges.That sensational scenario is an extrapolation of the astonishing new evidence unfolded on RTE's Prime Time last night.
And it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than the former Taoiseach was untruthful when documents now available in the national archive are examined.
However, if the new evidence seriously questions the "honest" tag often put before Jack Lynch's name, the same documents can also help remove a 30-year smear over Charles Haughey's reputation.
And for more than a generation, "honest" Jack Lynch and his version of Fianna Fail have cast an untrustworthy Haughey as a ruthless Republican.
Reversing the good guy, bad guy roles of Lynch and Haughey more than 30 years after the calamitous events of the Arms Trial is just one element of a truly amazing turn-around for modern historians.
The evidence against Jack Lynch revealed on Prime Time last night was supported by documents which became available in the national archives earlier this year.
Documentary evidence shows that the then government, headed by Jack Lynch, agreed to supply arms, ammunition and respirators on February 6, 1970 after beleagured Northern nationalists pleaded for help.
Later that day, the then Minister of Defence, Jim Gibbons, gave instructions to the Army Chief of Staff, General Sean MacEoin.
Some two weeks later arms were loaded into truck and moved to Dundalk six weeks later.
The documents uncovered in the national archives throw serious doubt on the truthfulness of the late Mr Lynch's recollections.
Particularly about the circumstances that led to the Arms Crisis in 1970.
Calling the most popular politician of his time a liar seems almost as unthinkable as portraying Charles Haughey as a victim of the Arms Trial.
But if the documents stand up to scrutiny, the late Neil Blaney, Captain James Kelly and John Kelly should never have been charged.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the evidence supports the view that the Arms trial was something of a political show trial.
Again, when so many careers were destroyed in the wake of the Arms Trial, the events in the Central Criminal Court must have slotted together like a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney were sacked from cabinet and charged with attempting to illegally import arms with Captain James Kelly, an army intelligence officer, and John Kelly, a Belfast Republican.
The then Minister for Defence, James Gibbons, repeatedly denied that there had been a decision taken by the government to import arms and he had passed those orders on to the army.
However, later in cross examination Gibbons said he has a vestigial knowledge which confirmed the jury's suspicions that the government had agreed to import arms for the North.
Four surviving jury members who took part in the 1970 trial spoke to the Prime Time team and helped dispel some of the propaganda spun in the 30 years since the trial.
The jury reached a unanimous "not guilty" verdict quickly, according to one member.
They believed the cabinet decided to import arms and for some reason changed their mind.
At the start of the trial, some of the jury believed Charles Haughey must be guilty or the authorities wouldn't have taken the case against him.
But by the end of the trial they wondered why the government had brought him to trial.
The surviving jury members were also angry at stories claiming the reason they had brought in "not guilty" verdicts was that they had been intimidated.
Former Labour Party Minister, Justin Keating, who was a member of the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee, told how the committee was denied access to the records, the same documents which Prime Time uncovered.
The records denied to Justin Keating and the committee were said to be privileged an not to contain anything of relevance, and the former minister said:
"It does seem inescapable that for almost a third of a century the apparatus of the State spread and defended a version of events that was not truthful."
- Sam Smyth

walrusgumble

ynotdu wrote: »

day December 14 2001,(article is from the Irish Independant) I would bare in mind that Jack Lynch was deceased so no Libel proceedings could be taken by him against RTE or the Indo!

IF Jack Lynch lied to the Dail when he denied his government agreed to supply arms to Northern nationalists in 1970, then Charles Haughey was fitted up on gun-running charges.That sensational scenario is an extrapolation of the astonishing new evidence unfolded on RTE's Prime Time last night.
And it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than the former Taoiseach was untruthful when documents now available in the national archive are examined.
However, if the new evidence seriously questions the "honest" tag often put before Jack Lynch's name, the same documents can also help remove a 30-year smear over Charles Haughey's reputation.
And for more than a generation, "honest" Jack Lynch and his version of Fianna Fail have cast an untrustworthy Haughey as a ruthless Republican.
Reversing the good guy, bad guy roles of Lynch and Haughey more than 30 years after the calamitous events of the Arms Trial is just one element of a truly amazing turn-around for modern historians.
The evidence against Jack Lynch revealed on Prime Time last night was supported by documents which became available in the national archives earlier this year.
Documentary evidence shows that the then government, headed by Jack Lynch, agreed to supply arms, ammunition and respirators on February 6, 1970 after beleagured Northern nationalists pleaded for help.
Later that day, the then Minister of Defence, Jim Gibbons, gave instructions to the Army Chief of Staff, General Sean MacEoin.
Some two weeks later arms were loaded into truck and moved to Dundalk six weeks later.
The documents uncovered in the national archives throw serious doubt on the truthfulness of the late Mr Lynch's recollections.
Particularly about the circumstances that led to the Arms Crisis in 1970.
Calling the most popular politician of his time a liar seems almost as unthinkable as portraying Charles Haughey as a victim of the Arms Trial.
But if the documents stand up to scrutiny, the late Neil Blaney, Captain James Kelly and John Kelly should never have been charged.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the evidence supports the view that the Arms trial was something of a political show trial.
Again, when so many careers were destroyed in the wake of the Arms Trial, the events in the Central Criminal Court must have slotted together like a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney were sacked from cabinet and charged with attempting to illegally import arms with Captain James Kelly, an army intelligence officer, and John Kelly, a Belfast Republican.
The then Minister for Defence, James Gibbons, repeatedly denied that there had been a decision taken by the government to import arms and he had passed those orders on to the army.
However, later in cross examination Gibbons said he has a vestigial knowledge which confirmed the jury's suspicions that the government had agreed to import arms for the North.
Four surviving jury members who took part in the 1970 trial spoke to the Prime Time team and helped dispel some of the propaganda spun in the 30 years since the trial.
The jury reached a unanimous "not guilty" verdict quickly, according to one member.
They believed the cabinet decided to import arms and for some reason changed their mind.
At the start of the trial, some of the jury believed Charles Haughey must be guilty or the authorities wouldn't have taken the case against him.
But by the end of the trial they wondered why the government had brought him to trial.
The surviving jury members were also angry at stories claiming the reason they had brought in "not guilty" verdicts was that they had been intimidated.
Former Labour Party Minister, Justin Keating, who was a member of the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee, told how the committee was denied access to the records, the same documents which Prime Time uncovered.
The records denied to Justin Keating and the committee were said to be privileged an not to contain anything of relevance, and the former minister said:
"It does seem inescapable that for almost a third of a century the apparatus of the State spread and defended a version of events that was not truthful."
- Sam Smyth

one sees why one must be careful when making comments about this issue. no one really knows what happend. dermot keogh's book on lynch is very supportive that lynch knew nothing, due to his people not properly informing him. lynch as one may note had stated that they could not idly stand by. however, one argues he was misinterepreted. i accept that. he and hillary did their best at the un t seek a hearing and lynch was in constant contact with downing st. maybe it was a case of indesciviness?

personally, i have little doubt that haughey, if he actaully had known about the arms etc, was actually trying to help and believed he had done good and was not trying to undermine lynch. i believe gibbons should have acted faster if the arms was against national policy. gibbons as minister for defence and his people knew captain kelly was doing some sort of business in the northern region.

if anything, i feel sorry for captain kelly and his family who have only recently being pardoned.