The Five Demands

Oggi 20 aprile rappresenta il termine ultimo fissato High Court per la rivelazione del nome dell’informatore che avrebbe fornito a Ian Paisley Jr. informazioni ‘fondamentali’ sull’omicidio di Billy Wright (leader LVF) avvenuto tra le mura del Maze nel 1997. Il procedimento giuridico infatti è volta a far luce su di un eventuale coinvolgimento delle autorità carcerarie.
Paisley Jr ha dichiarato: “Non mi recherò all’udienza di appello di oggi – non credo che sia nei miei interessi personali o  finanziari farlo” ed ha aggiunto: “Non ho io gli stessi diritti di sacerdoti, avvocati e giornalisti di tutelare la mia fonte o devo ledere così la fiducia dei cittadini che non possono più riporre la loro fiducia in un pubblico ufficiale?”.
“Porterò questo nome nella mia tomba.”
Inizialmente Ian Paisley Jr aveva insistito sul fatto che sarebbe stato disposto ad andare in galera per proteggere la sua fonte, ma Joshua Rosenberg, commentatore giurista, ha detto una sanzione pecuniaria dovrebbe essere la pena più probabile.

Paisley refuses to meet deadline (BBC News Northern Ireland)
Ian Paisley Jnr has said he will not comply with a High Court deadline for him to reveal the source of information relating to the murder of Billy Wright.
Mr Paisley claims a former prison warder gave him vital information about procedures at the Maze prison where the LVF leader was shot dead in 1997.
He said it was now “up to the courts” to decide whether punishing him was “in the public interest”.
Today is the deadline for him to reveal his source to the Billy Wright inquiry.
Mr Paisley said: “I’m not going to appeal today – I don’t believe it’s in my personal or financial interests to keep it running.”
“If I appeal and win, this case goes to the House of Lords,” he said.
“ There’s no obligation on courts to send people to prison for contempt – that obviously is the most serious punishment ”
Joshua Rosenberg Legal commentator
“If I don’t appeal and just let the case continue to run back to the High Court, nothing changes for me – I’m not revealing the name.”
Mr Paisley said there was an important principle at stake.
He said: “Do I have the same rights as priests, solicitors or journalists to protect my source or should I so damage the confidence of the public that they can no longer go to a public representative in confidence?
“This is about protecting the rights of constituents – ultimately we are their servants and I have to put them first. I will be taking this name to my grave.”
Mr Paisley had previously insisted he was prepared to go to jail to protect his source, but legal commentator Joshua Rosenberg said a fine was a more likely punishment.
“There’s no obligation on courts to send people to prison for contempt – that obviously is the most serious punishment,” he said.
“I suppose the question is, would Mr Paisley pay the fine?”
Mr Paisley said: “I don’t believe I would.”
Files
In June 2007, Mr Paisley wrote to Billy Wright’s father with information that the NI Prison Service had employed people to destroy about 5,600 files shortly after his son was shot at the Maze Prison.
Mr Paisley had said he was told of an alleged policy within the prison service to destroy a large number of files as an emergency due to data protection legislation.
He said this information, which was provided by a “senior prison officer”, claimed that the decision to destroy the files was “taken at the top”.
In his ruling in March, Mr Justice Gillen said that although it was important for elected representatives to be able to protect the confidentiality of a source, the information played a central part in enabling the inquiry to determine whether or not the prison authorities had facilitated Mr Wright’s death.
A spokesman for the Billy Wright Inquiry said on Monday they were aware of Mr Paisley’s decision and were considering their position.