Gerry Adams to appeal conviction

FrancieBrady

Does anyone agree that this is an intriguing move by Adams and an interesting response from Jeffery Donaldson which seems to indicate that the 'discovered document' might address Adams alleged membership of the IRA.
What else could this be about?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/gerry-adams-appealing-1975-jail-escape-convictions-1.3159451

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-slams-gerry-adams-bid-to-quash-prison-escape-bid-verdicts-35945203.html

seamus

I expect this discovered document is most likely some internal British communications which could be used to appeal that Adams's internment was unlawful, and therefore the convictions for attempting to escape should be quashed.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

I expect this discovered document is most likely some internal British communications which could be used to appeal that Adams's internment was unlawful, and therefore the convictions for attempting to escape should be quashed.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for Donaldson's very quick counter. Which seems to be saying...'doesn't matter, you are still responsible for what the IRA did'.

I don't think attempting to escape would ever be lawful, even if the original internment was. I could be wrong about that though.

blanch152

From reading the articles, it seems that the only basis for appeal is a technical one. If he was unlawfully detained, then he can't be convicted for attempting to escape.

If it is all based on one document saying that internment was unlawful (as opposed to hundreds saying it was) then it is very tenuous. It reminds of the IRA claim that they weren't militarily defeated because one retired British general in one edited TV interview appeared to agree.

Anyways, we shall see.

seamus

What else could it be though?

It seems to me possible that these documents present some level of evidence that Adams's original internment was at least a little shaky. But Donaldson is saying, "It doesn't matter, you were involved anyway".

I imagine if you can prove that you were originally jailed unlawfully or incorrectly, then any convictions for attempting to escape that incarceration are pardoned as a matter of course. Even though in the strictest sense they are distinct crimes regardless.

That said, I could be way off the mark. This could be as simple as something procedural or evidentiary in the two convictions that could make them legally unsafe - such as taking Adams's membership of the IRA as a given.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

What else could it be though?

It seems to me possible that these documents present some level of evidence that Adams's original internment was at least a little shaky. But Donaldson is saying, "It doesn't matter, you were involved anyway".

I imagine if you can prove that you were originally jailed unlawfully or incorrectly, then any convictions for attempting to escape that incarceration are pardoned as a matter of course. Even though in the strictest sense they are distinct crimes regardless.

That said, I could be way off the mark. This could be as simple as something procedural or evidentiary in the two convictions that could make them legally unsafe - such as taking Adams's membership of the IRA as a given.

Internment was taking those under suspicion into custody - it was the word of one against the word of another, nothing more. There was no presentation of or cross examination of evidence and subsequent conviction.

If internment was lawful(and the British maintain it was) then all that would be needed was a suspicion.
I am not sure what could be subsequently discovered that would undermine the original internment. If that makes sense.

I would like to see some verification that 'escaping custody' would be lawful even if your original detention was unlawful.

seamus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If internment was lawful(and the British maintain it was) then all that would be needed was a suspicion.
I am not sure what could be subsequently discovered that would undermine the original internment. If that makes sense.

Legally there would still be i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, as opposed to an RUC man just picking someone up off the street and throwing them in jail.

Although no trial was needed, there was an official process to follow or some very weak standard of suspicion that was required to intern someone. Even something as simple as "the local super said so".

So if they found an archive document which indicated that the law hadn't been followed to the letter in the case of Adams's internment, then that could call it into question.

However, since internment itself wasn't a conviction and therefore can't be appealed, he can only appeal the two charges of jail break.

Escaping custody is in itself a distinct crime, but I'm finding it hard to find any examples of anyone who was charged with this and then later had the original conviction overturned. It would appear that it's a relatively rare charge in general.

Obviously it suited the government at the time to have an actual crime to convict interned prisoners of.

Perhaps there's something in those convictions that Adams believes is unsafe.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

Legally there would still be i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, as opposed to an RUC man just picking someone up off the street and throwing them in jail.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Block arrests and no court appearance wouldn't leave much of a paper trail.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

Legally there would still be i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, as opposed to an RUC man just picking someone up off the street and throwing them in jail.

Although no trial was needed, there was an official process to follow or some very weak standard of suspicion that was required to intern someone. Even something as simple as "the local super said so".

So if they found an archive document which indicated that the law hadn't been followed to the letter in the case of Adams's internment, then that could call it into question.

However, since internment itself wasn't a conviction and therefore can't be appealed, he can only appeal the two charges of jail break.

Escaping custody is in itself a distinct crime, but I'm finding it hard to find any examples of anyone who was charged with this and then later had the original conviction overturned. It would appear that it's a relatively rare charge in general.

Obviously it suited the government at the time to have an actual crime to convict interned prisoners of.

Perhaps there's something in those convictions that Adams believes is unsafe.

Thinking about it, even if you were remanded in jail on a charge without bail, and subsequently found innocence, could you separately be charged with an escape attempt should you have made one while on remand?

seamus

blanch152 wrote: »

Thinking about it, even if you were remanded in jail on a charge without bail, and subsequently found innocence, could you separately be charged with an escape attempt should you have made one while on remand?

Yes. I found cases where that had happened, although in the US.

The concept behind the law is that everyone should respect the legal process and if lawfully detained, should respect that detention. Attempting to escape is then a separate charge, regardless of whether you are guilty of the original.

It's contentious though. Many countries recognise the inherent desire in the human being to want to escape from detention, and therefore escaping custody is neither a crime, nor has any bearing on any subsequent case.

Obviously if you commit a different crime while escaping (assault someone, steal a car, etc), then you can be charged.

A bit OT here

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

Yes. I found cases where that had happened, although in the US.

The concept behind the law is that everyone should respect the legal process and if lawfully detained, should respect that detention. Attempting to escape is then a separate charge, regardless of whether you are guilty of the original.

It's contentious though. Many countries recognise the inherent desire in the human being to want to escape from detention, and therefore escaping custody is neither a crime, nor has any bearing on any subsequent case.

Obviously if you commit a different crime while escaping (assault someone, steal a car, etc), then you can be charged.

A bit OT here

I'd be amazed if it was legal in British law. But stranger things... etc.

Fascinated to know what this document contains if attempted escape is illegal and therefore unchallengeable.
Why would anyone advise him to take a case?

Red_Wake

The linked article doesn't seem to explain the legal basis for the appeal?

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

The linked article doesn't seem to explain the legal basis for the appeal?

No, and despite a search, I can't find one. Going to have to wait.