The Five Demands

Colin Duffy ed altri 5 prigionieri hanno fallito nel loro tentativo di ottenere dalla Corte una dichiarazioni giudiziale che accertasse la violazione dei diritti umani in relazione a prolungati periodi di detenzione previsti dalla legge anti-terrorismo

Sei imputati, tra cui il prominente repubblicano Colin Duffy, speravamo in un verdetto che stabilisse l’incompatibilità della legislazione anti-terrorismo, con il loro diritto di libertà tutelato dall’art. 5 della Convenzione Europea sui Diritti Umani.
Ma i giudici hanno respinto ogni loro velleità giudiziale, stabilendo che non c’è alcun fondamento nella loro richiesta.
Il giudice Declan, della Divisional Court, ha aggiunto: “Non riteniamo che i ricorrenti non abbiano fondamenti di base, per sostenere che i punti 29 o 36 dell’Appendice 8 del Terrorism Act 2000 siano incompatibili con l’Art. 5 della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo”.
I giudici hanno motivato la loro decisione sostenendo che, non è contestabile il periodo massimo di 28 giorni in attesa di formulazione dell’accusa, senza tenere in considerazione la proporzionalità o la giustificazione di tale detenzione. Resta inteso che comunque debba essere continuamente motivata dal persistere di un ragionevole dubbio.
I difensori dei sei detenuti – 4 in connessione all’attentato alla base militare di Massereene e 2 in connessione all’omicidio dell’agente della PSNI Steve Carroll (avvenuti entrambi nel marzo 2009) – ha rivelato che la guerra non si fermerà a questa battaglia persa, e che presenteranno appello alla Corte Suprema di Londra.

Duffy fails in court challenge (UTV)
High-profile dissident republican Colin Duffy and five others, who were arrested in connection with the murder of two soldiers and a policeman, have failed to win a court declaration that the period of detention contravened human rights laws.
The suspects were seeking a verdict that provisions under anti-terrorism legislation were incompatible with their right to liberty under European legislation.
But Northern Ireland’s Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, and two other senior judges ruled that no basis for making the declaration had been established.
Lawyers are now set to mount a challenge to the verdict at the Supreme Court in London.
The case related to the detention of four people in connection with the Real IRA shootings of Sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azminkar, 21, outside Massereene Army barracks in Antrim on March 2009.
Duffy, 43 and from Lurgan, is due to stand trial for the murders.
Two others involved in the challenge were held over the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll, 48, by the Continuity IRA in Craigavon, Co Armagh two days later.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000 the suspects were able to be detained for up to 28 days before they must be formally accused or released.
The six claimed that relevant sections of the legislation were incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It was argued that a judge who hears applications for extended custody was not a competent judicial authority because issues of bail cannot be considered.
The Divisional Court rejected claims that the Act meant a person could be detained for up to 28 days without any consideration of the proportionality or justification for such detention.
It stated that there is a continuing need to demonstrate reasonable suspicion.
Sir Declan said: “Issues of proportionality and justification are fundamental aspects of the review process.”
Lawyers for the applicants also argued that Article 5 of the European Convention requires a detained person to be charged well before the expiry of the 28 day period. But finding against this submission, the court held that the charging of a detainee was not relevant to the duration of their detention.
Sir Declan added: “We do not consider that the appellants have established any basis for contending that paragraphs 29 or 36 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act are incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Following the verdict a lawyer for four of those involved in the case confirmed plans to contest it.
Paul Pierce, of Kevin R Winters and Co, said: “We are going to carefully consider the judgment and it will be out intention to petition the Supreme Court so they can consider the matters further.”