Saturday, July 29, 2006
CRJ: a private deal, but is it legal?
It lseems that British Government plans to approve the running of CRJ under official auspices are running into deeper water. One Ulster Unionist insider told Slugger that the key question should not be whether CRJ should be funded or not, but whether its activities were actually legal. Former Taoiseach Garrett FitzGerald lays some heavy charges at the door of CRJ:
The introductory paragraph is worth quoting in full:
Several years ago, Sinn Féin established “Community Restorative Justice” (CRJ). Its director of training, Harry Maguire, is one of the convicted murderers of two British army corporals at the time of an IRA funeral. Recently, having witnessed the beating of a nationalist, Jeff Commander, by a bunch of republican thugs, he failed to give evidence of this attack to the police in accordance with his duty under Northern Ireland law, writes Garret FitzGerald
To begin with he quotes from the Catriona Ruane article in the Mourne Observer (not online, but Eddie McGrady has a chunk of it here)
Several nationalist families have reported that CRJ members have been involved with the IRA in attempts to intimidate family members into leaving Northern Ireland. Moreover, Eileen Calder, of the Rape Crisis Centre, has stated that the CRJ has “threatened women and attempted to cover up crimes committed by those with IRA, Sinn Féin or CRJ connections. Allowing such people power is like letting the lunatics run the asylum.”
He also notes from the same time that:
Marie Brown, of Foyle Women’s Aid, says CRJ has stated that it would refer cases to her organisation only if it agreed not to involve the police. Finally, the McCartney sisters have told MPS at Westminster that people associated with the murder of their brother are involved in CRJ schemes and that the CRJ is a paramilitary front, used to intimidate the local population and to protect criminals with an IRA background.
According to FitzGerald, in preparing the original guidelines, the British government only consulted CRJ Ireland and Northern Ireland Alternatives. He claims that no other stakeholders were asked:
Then, when the draft guidelines deriving from this carefully-skewed process were issued last December 5th, they were found to have omitted any provision for regulation of these committees or for an independent complaints procedure. Specific provision was also made to exempt local CRJ groups from working with the police, by providing that they could choose instead to deal with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland or the Youth Justice Agency. When the PSNI raised this with the Northern Ireland Office, they were effectively told not to object to these proposed arrangements.
On the three main changes to the latest British proposals:
- There is a requirement on CRJ to notify “a dedicated police [officer] all such information on the matter as the PSNI may require”. But there is no requirement to work with them.
- “An independent, external, complaints procedure” will be provided by the Probation Board, an official government body, but not a statutary body. That is, unlike the Police Ombudsman which has unprecidented powers to investigate the PSNI, it will have absolutely no teeth
- The vetting procedure will not allow anyone convicted of terrorist offences after April 1998 to take up a position with CRJ. Anyone convicted before that date will, as will any ordinary criminal three years afterwards. This, FitzGerald believes, will “enable local IRA activists to continue in a new guise their past intimidation of local communities, whose leaders are currently afraid to speak out against what the British government is now seeking to impose on their areas”.
He concludes that the proposed guidelines are the result of a private deal that “Tony Blair did with Provisional Sinn Féin”.
But the loose nature of the legislation holds some dangers for the CRJ itself. Even if the Ruane statement was ‘a moment of madness’, the near complete absence of public oversight over its activities, compared to the draconian nature of the Police Ombudsman’s brief over the PSNI must have implications for the longer term credibility of the CRJ itself. And it raises the question of its fulnerabilty to human rights legislation.
Finally he puts this move in a ‘human rights’ context of Northern Ireland’s turbulent history:
For 35 years Irish governments have never hesitated to defend the rights of Northern nationalists from abuses - whether by unionist politicians or repressive state actions, or by IRA or loyalist paramilitaries. If, as the unacceptable terms of this revised protocol now suggest, our Government’s private representations on this matter have failed, its duty is to make it clear publicly that the installation of what is effectively a Sinn Féin policing structure in nationalist areas of the North.
Mick Fealty @ 02:08 PM
A brilliant piece. Let’s hope enough Irish people get to read it and reflect on what tangoing with subversives can do to your sovereignty and your freedoms.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:35 PMI agree with Nic. Excellent analysis, Mick.
Thanks for that, I have been looking for someone to set last weeks proposals in context, which you have now done.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:38 PMThese “CRJ” schemes are a deeply worrying prospect for Northern Ireland, and should be .
The absence of devolution means that the Provos can work directly with the Peter Hain and his useful fools in the Northern Ireland Office to push their agenda for a legitimised political and social control over working-class Catholic communities.
The DUP offered itself forward on the basis that it would replace “pushover unionism”. Since it defeated the UUP, the Provo/NIO concession train has moved up several gears.
Time to get devolution back. Time to get policing and justice under the control of Northern Ireland’s elected representatives, all of whom (bar the Provos) are opposed to Provo CRJ. These CRJ proposals would not get through a devolved Assembly.
The DUP’s failure to achieve its “fair deal” is irresponsible and is costing us dear. The Provos have more influence in the absence of devolution than they would in a power-sharing executive.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 05:58 PMThe SDLP has picked its fights well over the past year, most notably with the ridiculous OTR plans being scrapped. By systematically highlighting the myriad of pitfalls which CRJ presents, logically it should also fall on the sword. Time will tell if this comes to pass.
Time and again we see British Government/ Sinn Féin collusion dressed-up as some sort of ‘benefit to communities’- the only people it benefits are provisional republicans. They simply wish to maintain a grip on their areas now that the IRA has left the stage.
Nationalist/republican areas deserve the same level of police assistance as other areas- some half-baked scheme comprising, amongst others, people whose criminal records display wanton disregard for basic morality, will clearly be detrimental to these areas, regardless of any false cachets of respectability stamped on them by HMG/ Sinn Féin.
Amateurs with possible ulterior motives cannot replace the most scrtunised police force in the western world when it comes to the investigation of crime, and work must continue in earnest to prevent any moves which would bring this about.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:10 PMWell said, El Matador.
The SDLP seems to be leading the charge on this one. Sad to say, the DUP and UUP must already have been “pushed over”.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:13 PMCRJ schemes would be regarded by most Unionists as a clear example that the IRA has not gone away but has undergone a carefully controlled and constructed metamorphosis and is still inextricably linked to Sinn Fein.
Again it is about legitimacy.Sinn Fein is unable to accept the PSNI as the legitimate policing authority in this part of the United Kingdom and so the system of policing is subverted.
CRJ schemes as presently constituted are a barrier to Unionist acceptance of the “Peace Process”Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:40 PMMick,
Interesting teaser/headline but I’m confused as you don’t provide any detail on your UUP insider’s claims but instead link to an op ed piece with many unsubstantiated claims. Can you expand on what your UUP insider said regarding the legality of CRJ schemes? Or do you not have the detail? Or are you saying that claims of poor practise would, if proven or true, be illegal? Is this a case of unproven allegation being treated as a tide of evidence again or do you have some meat to put on the bones of the claim the schemes are illegal? Or have I completly missed the relevant sections and ended up barking up the wrong tree?
Either way a bit of clarification would help me out. Thanks.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:41 PMBased on the assumption that all right minded people think the CRJ system is appalling, the question springs to mind, “why do those promoting the CRJ system think it is a good idea?”.
I feel there is something very sinister going on here, a byproduct of dirty schemes of the past. It strikes me as appeasement of thugs who have incriminating evidence (think counterintelligence) that could cause great political damage and international embarrassment to the British Government.
If that’s not the entire case then at the very least this CRJ scheme is proof that the British Government will agree to anything that will get Northern Ireland out of their affairs. Hains cursory behaviour is quite indicative of this mindset also.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:45 PMMy guess is that they might be illegal by virtue of being in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights,
article 6 of which states:“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Maybe CRJ would not constitute a fair hearing? If you were accused of a misdemeanour in nationalist west Belfast, would you rather be tried by a properly-appointed magistrate in a properly-constituted court, or by a local Provo?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:48 PMWillowfield,
The head of CRJ has repeatly said they don’t tout for business and if the victim or ‘accused’ at any time withdraws from the process they can’t proceed. Mr Auld claims it is an agreed system where both parties accept a resolution outside the formal criminal justice system. Is that their right or are the victims breaking the law by failing to report the crime to the PSNI?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 06:57 PMT.Ruth-
You may well have a point, but I don’t think we should let it act as a barrier to progress. After all, it is such inability to take control of our own affairs which has afforded the British Government the power to make such decisions regarding justice. Addionally, it is nationalist rather than unionist communities which would suffer from such schemes.
Rather than scaremongering like the DUP and going round in circles, issues such as this must be approached in a mature manner and dealt with effectively. The SDLP has compiled a comprehensive dossier of evidence to prove the case against CRJs, including the aformentioned admission by the Carpetbagger-in-Chief that CRJs are being set up by Sinn Féin as an alternative to the PSNI. This dossier forms part of a heretofore well-executed project which hopefully will result in CRJ fading into history books, whilst still maintaining efforts to progress the political process and perhaps allowing for real restorative justice schemes to be established.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:01 PMGood question, na, and one to which I don’t know the answer.
My fear is that in Provo-controlled districts, “pressure” will be put on people - both victims and accused - to go to CRJ rather than the police and the courts. I would fear that the accused will be pressurised into giving up their human rights to a properly-conducted trial, in order to go through CRJ. The accused will always, in effect, be presumed guilty. Will the accused have the right to legal representation?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:01 PMThe CRJ say they can’t proceed unless both sides agree to the process. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary and while I can understand some taking a ‘I don’t believe them’ attitude it remains an opinion without substantiation so doesn’t seem to amount to proof of undue pressure or illegal activity.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:11 PMna,
What he said was in reaction to this line in the Newsletter, that funding (or no funding) was the main issue.
Instead he believed the actual practice should be examined, and if found to meet legal standards it could be funded. If not, then the state should then consider what further actions it might need to take. It should not, he believed, acquiese.
I would also note that he was very critical of the DUP for precisely the reasons Willowfield has outlined above. If it helps in terms of context, this was said before the FitzGerald piece, not after.
Re the title, the problem with a lot of this stuff is that little of it is likely to pass under the scrutiny of any legislature, Irish or British. The specific question of legality I’ve raised this context is its vulnerablity to existing Human Rights legislation.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:16 PMThere are also allegations in Mr Fitzgerald’s piece I can’t understand. He claims an individual from CRJ is failing to cooperate with the police, an allegation also made by others.
I have heard Mr Auld say that the person in question has never been approached by the PSNI on this matter despite what seem to be allegations of withholding information on an assault. Maybe the person believes they have no information to give? Maybe they actually don’t have any information? If the PSNI believe something to the contrary after being informed of the claims by 3rd parties why have they not approached him and interviewed him under caution?
Or have they? Am I barking up a wrong tree on this one also?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:19 PMMick,
‘The specific question of legality I’ve raised this context is its vulnerablity to existing Human Rights legislation.’
My question to Willowfield then seems a pretty central point. If as CRJ state they only proceed on agreement from victim and accused to use CRJ rather than the formal criminal justice system and if either withdraws they cannot proceed; is that their right?
Or is the argument ‘i don’t believe them’ being advanced with no supporting evidence as some kind of human rights violation?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:31 PMEl matador
I have been very impressed by the honesty and forthrightness displayed by various SDLP people in relation to CRJ-and disappointed by the failure of Unionist politicians to vigorously attack the whole concept of vigilante justice schemes.
The ability of Blair and Hain to act as IRA appeasers clearly sets the CRJ concept in the conText of another past dirty deal and another betrayal of democracy. But then when one watches Blair imitate the Bush walk and the Bush talk in the middle east to explain why innocent children are dying one is hardly surprised.Expediency enables both men to plumb any depthPosted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:36 PMna
I never mentioned proof, I said it was my fear.
My instinct is that in Provo-controlled districts, “pressure” will be brought to bear to ensure that people “agree” to have matters referred to CRJ rather than the police. Those accused of crimes will have to either accept guilt without a trial, or face social ostracism or worse.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:55 PMThe claims from Marie Brown and Eileen Calder are more worrying if true. CRJ certainly don’t seem equipped to deal with cases like rape or murder especially not apart from people trained in dealing with the emotional issues. If victims are approaching CRJ as Ms Brown claims they should be referring them to organisations such as Women’s Aid or the RCC but clearly some rape victims feel uncomfortable with the criminal justice system and this does not extend just to those in nationalist areas. I would hope that this if true is stopped but also think no support group should refer the issue to the police if the victim does not wish to.
Ms Claders comments have been semi-quoted by Mr Fitzgerald only giving her worst assessment and that is just plain dishonest.
”“At best, CRJ adopt a wellmeaning but ham-fisted approach on rape and sexual abuse with which they aren’t qualified to deal. They’ve hampered cases by interfering with evidence which meant the perpetrators weren’t brought to court.
“At worst, they’ve threatened women and attempted to cover up crimes committed by those with IRA, Sinn Fein or CRJ connections. Allowing such people power is like letting the lunatics run the asylum.”
Regardless, I agree that CRJ wouldn’t seem qualified to deal with rape cases alone or in a perfect world at all, even if as CRJ claim they don’t tout for business and the victim would have had to approach them on the issue.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 07:57 PMThe Brit govt attitude seems to be:
“We’ll drive of that bridge when we get to it”
to use the Ted Kennedy reference.
Whether driving off will be an accident or deliberate only time will tell.
Playing politics with peoples lives, business as usual then!!!
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 08:05 PMAs a citizen, another of my fears about CRJ (generally, not just in relation to Provo CRJ), is that it seems to me to be like a form of arbitrary justice.
Surely it is a principle of a fair justice system, that a person is tried before a properly-appointed judge or magistrate, and sentenced by same, and not by the victim.
Is the following scenario in the interests of justice?
Person A steals someone’s car in one place, and Person B steals someone’s car in another place. Person A lives in an area with a CRJ system and his victim has a social conscience and feels sorry for him. Person A gets off with clearing out his victim’s garage and building a wall in the garden and has no criminal record; but Person B ends up in jail with a criminal record.
Or am I misunderstanding how CRJ works?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 08:08 PM‘What he said was in reaction to this line in the Newsletter, that funding (or no funding) was the main issue.
Instead he believed the actual practice should be examined, and if found to meet legal standards it could be funded. If not, then the state should then consider what further actions it might need to take. It should not, he believed, acquiese.’
The value of these CRJ groups has never been proven to me. Proponents of this system often speak in very abstract terms that really do not convince me that society is well served by ordinary people without any real training, handling criminal issues.
The arguments for and against go back and forth,and in the meantime the security of our communities just gets further and further politicised. And that is not helpful. If half the effort was put in BY ALL concerned to establishing an acceptable police force, we would be better served and our communities would be safer to live in.Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 08:16 PMWhy do you think the police force is unacceptable, Maura.
(Incidentally, could someone explain why people more-often-than-not refer to the “Newsletter” (one word), when the paper itself uses two words?)
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 08:27 PMIt would all be hilarious if not for the human rights abuses that are bound to occur. The SDLP are playing a clever game here, by setting out their stall so firmly and clearly, they will be there to mop up the defectors from Sinn Fein when the scandals start happening. And let’s be in no doubt here, they will happen. No system of justice that is run behind closed doors can hope to avoid scandal and corruption. All it takes is the rumour of scandal and corruption, because the lack of accountability works both ways, with those involved in CRJ being unable to deal with whispering campaigns when they start.
For all the talk about equal culpability between the Brits and Sinn Fein, it’s not the Brits who stand to lose votes when it all goes tits up.Sinn Fein have made a rod for their own backs here, and for what?
What on earth do they hope to gain that is worth risking all that they stand to lose when people get a chance to take the Pepsi/Coke challenge between British judicial abuses and Sinn Fein judicial abuses?Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 08:39 PMhow else cold sf sell an endorsement of the PSNI without having CRJ established. the arguments against crj are completely decontextualised. the fact is that most working-class republican areas actively detest the PSNI. That cant really be disputed. So if SF are, as expected, to endorse the PSNI, how could they do so without some sort of buffer arangement in place. remember the patten reforms were a compromise for republicans. the authors of patten later stated that their recomendations hadn’t ‘just been cherry-picked, but gutted’. in that context how else could sinn fein justify, or sell, the idea of buying into the PSNI without CRJ, or some similar alternative, in place. that is the real politik of the matter and would explain why the irish and british governments are keen to find an arrangement.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2006 @ 08:45 PM
