Republicans refusing to recognise the court

kildarejohn

I am wondering when the practice of Irish republicans/nationalists refusing to recognise the courts established under British rule first began? Did it start back in Fenian times or was it in early 20th century?

Conall Cernach

While I'm not sure on exactly when I do know that when you refuse to recognise the court a plea of "not guilty, no defence" is entered. So anyone that pled not guilty or offered a defence were recognising the courts. The Invincibles had a defence in the 1880s.

seanrambo87

I'm not 100% but in my opinion it probably comes from the establishment of the first dail in 1919. Republican courts were set up and functioned quite well. With the free state winning the civil war they had to use the British system. Staunch Republicans do not recognise their authority. I don't know about earlier rebels but I would be interested to hear.

Peregrinus

Refusal to recognise the court is not a concept invented by Irish republicans. We have letters between Lenin and other revolutionaries from 1905 discussing the deployment of the tactic at the trials of Social Democrats in Tsarist Russia.

But it goes back much further even that that; when Charles I of England was brought to trial in 1649 at the conclusion of the English civil, he refused to enter a plea or to discuss the charges against him; he addressed the court only to challenge its authority and to deny its right to try him. I don't know whether the term "refuse to recognise the court" was used or not, but that is what he was doing.

Mick Tator

Charles I believed he was above the court, i.e. he recognised it but not its authority to sit in judgement on him, as he upheld/maintained the 'Divine Right of Kings' and only God could judge him.

kildarejohn

Going back to my original question, i.e.. when did not recognising court start in Ireland, I did a bit of research myself in Newspaper archive, and came up with a case in Gurteen in Roscommon in 1889. According to Freemans Journal 26/06/1888, Mr. O'Kelly M.P. gave a speech saying "the men when they were brought before this Inquisition Court said rather than recognise this court they would go to jail, and they have gone to jail (cheers)"

This case was about boycotting organised by the Land League.

BalcombeSt4

Did Robert Emmet or any other United Irish who were tired recognize the court?

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058358955/republicans-refusing-to-recognise-the-court

It depends on what you mean by refusing to accept the authority of the courts. People have been challenging the authority of the courts in one way or another since the day they were established and that is not going to change. So you need a better definition.

I'd say the "The Fountainhill Case" at Ballinrobe in May 1920 is probably the most significant case. Significant because it was the first serious dispute over land taken by Unionists before a Dail court rather than the British established courts. And answered the question: could Unionists expect justice from this new Republic. And the answer was yes, they won the case.

Unfortunately Commdt General Tom Maguire ignored the ruling and to ordered by Cathal Brugha to implement it. But that is a sad story for another day.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122465481#Comment_122465481

Interesting! I'm new to the area, and its an area very rich in history.

https://www.historicalballinrobe.org/places/the-town/the_first_dail_court

BalcombeSt4

Did the Irish get the tactic from the Hungarian Revolt in the Austrian Empire in the 1848 revolutions? Wasn't the Irish Republican's basis for not recognizing the courts tied to the policy of abstentionism and not recognizing the authority of British power in Ireland and later the six most northeastern counties in Ireland and until from 1922 to 1986 and the 26 counties of the Free State & later just Ireland? As I know Griffith wrote a book (or pamphlet) about Hungary regaining some type of joint sovereignty as partners in the Austro-Hungarian Empire which is what Griffith wanted. This is the approach Griffith wanted for Ireland to regain political sovereignty, which might have been a more suitable compromise for the Ulster Loyalists, as Ireland wouldn't be leaving the UK they would simply be Britain's partner in crime in the Empire committing imperial crimes in South Africa, Egypt, Oman, Cyprus, Kenya etc. But I doubt this would welcomed by Irish Socialists & Anarcho-syndicalists like James Connolly & Captain Jack White or the more radical anti-colonist Republicans like Clarke & Major John MacBride, but I could see the IPP people & the nationalists who accepted the treaty especially the likes of William Redmond, O'Higgins & Cosgrave.

There have been cases of IRA Volunteers being kicked out for recognizing the courts in the 26-county Irish state, "Dutch" Doherty (who was accused of killing the 3 off-duty Scottish Soldiers a few miles outside Belfast in 1971) was expelled from the Provos in 1972 for accepting bail conditions, as was Sean MacStofain the then leader of the Provisional IRA Army Council was also kicked out for recognizing the court on the 19 November 1972, and was replaced by people who had almost comically short runs as Chief of Staff, Joe Cahill was CoS four months, two weeks, who was replaced by Seamus Twomey's first time as CoS for three months & three days.

Also, when & who was the first Irish Republican or Irish nationalists in general not recognize the courts in Britain during periods of conflict with Irish Nationalists, Ulster Loyalists & British forces? The earliest case I can find is the pretty infamous 1973 Old Bailey & Whitehall car bombings which in total injured 240 people, carried out by the likes of the Prices Sisters, Hugh Feeney & Gery Kelly (who all went on Hunger Strike after the case), of the 11 IRA Vols captured one young woman, Roisin McNearney turned informer so she was obviously kicked out & but William McLarnon pleaded guilty to all charges and got a slightly lighter sentence of 15 years instead of 20 years which the other nine got.

Peregrinus

Couple of points:

1. Griffiths did write The Resurrection of Hungary, suggesting both a British-Irish dual monarchy, and a Hungarian-style policy of "passive resistance" as a tactic for achieving it. It might be overstating the case to say that Griffiths himself wanted a dual monarchy; he always personally preferred an independent republic, but he he felt that a dual monarchy might be more capable of securing assent from Irish unionists and from the British, and so might be more attainable.
2. I honestly don't know whether the policy of passive resistance, as practised in Hungary, included a refusal to recognise the courts. I suspect not to any great extent, and possibly not at all. The core of the policy was a refusal by members of the Hungarian establishment/intelligentsia/middle class to involve themselves in public affairs — they wouldn't accept government appointments, they wouldn't advise government, etc, etc. The results was that civil government in Hungary basically didn't function, and the country remained under military administration pretty much the whole time from 1848 to 1867. Efforts by the Austrian government to negotiate a solution were stymied by the fact that almost no-one in Hungary would talk to them. But none of this was illegal, so the leaders of this movement did not often end up in court on charges connected with their political activities, so the question of whether they would recognise the court or not didn't arise. (Plus, the country was under military administration, so the government could take a lot of repressive measures without having to go to court at all.)
3. That's not to say that there was no militant political activity that ended up in court. But those engaged in militant acts were, by definition, not following the policy of passive resistance (which expressly urged no law-breaking) so the their decision on whether they recognised the court would not, either way, characterise the policy of passive resistance.
4. I think you're right that, whatever value the a dual monarchy might have had in Ireland in attracting support or acceptance on one side was (more than) counterbalanced by the fact that it repelled people on the other side who wouldn't settle for less than full independence and/or a republic. Probably the more signficant impact of Griffith's writing was not his advocacy of dual monarchy, which never really generated much enthusiasm in Ireland, but his advocacy of the strategy of passive resistance, including absentionism, refusal to recognise institutions, etc. This was applied (without the "passive" bit, obviously) with considerable political impact, during the War of Independence.

BalcombeSt4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122552935#Comment_122552935

Thanks for that, that answers a LOT.

So number 2 sounds very similar to what the doves in Sinn Fein wanted to do in 1919 in boycotting official institutions of the British state, of course not interacting with the RIC, and using the Dail to instruct the public to avoid having any social interaction with the RIC and other British official institutions.

Peregrinus

Yes. I think what you term "the doves' wanted to do a bit more than that. They weren't averse to illegal action as such; they were keen for country councils, for example, to transfer their allegiance to Dáil Éireann and withhold rates from the British Treasury, and they urged various other illegal activities. But they weren't keen on the use of force, either because they though it wouldn't work (the British had vastly superior firepower), they had a horror of where it could lead (this was just after the Great War, after all) or they opposed it as a matter of principle. Others, obviously, were keen to engage in armed resistance to British rule. As we know, the opening shots of the War of Independence happened literally on the same day as Dáil Éireann first met; neither was directed by the other. Because neither the doves nor the hawks were in control, a twin-track strategy was pursued —both passive resistance and armed struggle. And that proved, in the circumstances, to be a powerful combination.

Dr.Nightdub

"Also, when & who was the first Irish Republican or Irish nationalists in general not recognize the courts in Britain during periods of conflict with Irish Nationalists, Ulster Loyalists & British forces?"

Not recognising the courts was pretty much par for the course for IRA members in Belfast during 1920-22, I would imagine it was the same in the south.

BalcombeSt4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583893#Comment_122583893

Yeah, I guess you could say there were three camps, those who wanted peaceful but illegal methods like Griffith, those like Brugha who wanted more conventional military methods & those like Collins who wanted guerrilla & assassination tactics, but all sides were in favor of some political measure. Could it be argued none of the camps in the 1st & 2nd Dail controlled the IRA? Collins controlled an active service unit (the squad) in Dublin, but how much influence did he have over the column tactics of those in Cork, Mayo, Galway, Kerry, Wexford or Limerick?

But still, some of the most successful guerrilla campaigns/liberation movements use twin-track strategies with competing personalities who have different ideas. In Vietnam, Giap wanted to talk with the Americans while carrying out low-scale guerrilla warfare, Le Duan wanted a large scale offensive & Le Duc Tho wanted something in between, and they landed on the Tet Offensive, but they still kept dipolamcy talks with the Americans during and after it, the Soviets encouraged talks with the Americans wheras the Chinese pressed for more purely militant action.

Withholding money from the British treasury seems to be a pretty common tactic, I remember in 1971 or 72 the SDLP encouraged nationalists to "not to pay rent, not to pay rates and not to pay arrears". And, John Hume gave that speech in the Guildhall I think it was, when they set up an alternative assembly quoting Carson saying he "didn't give a tuppence if it was treason or not" and in the same speech said, "We do not recognise the authority of the Stormont Parliament".

So the SDLP taking one or two pages from the old Sinn Fein playbook there. And even tho they were non-violent the IRA was well on the offensive by that stage, so even though they never achieved all their goals, that twin-track approach worked again, I always wondered had the Provos ended their offensive in 1972 like the Officials & just became a defense force would they be viewed less controversially and more favorably by middle & upper-class Ireland, as their biggest achievement was the abolishment of the old Orange Stormont in March 1972 or even in 1974 and supported Sunningdale.