Blog Archives

Flag protester Jamie (Provo Bhoy) Bryson wants his bail conditions relexed !!!

LEADING loyalist flag protester (and poster boy) Jamie Bryson is to aa play to have his bail conditions relaxed so he can attend further protests and speak at demonstrations.


Mr Bryson (23), will a play to Belfast Magistrates Court today in a bid to be aallowed to attend a protest against a contentious republican march through Castlederg in Co Tyrone later this month. His friend pastor Mark Gordon said Mr Bryson expects his application will be refused and if so he will a play to the High Court. “Police seem to want to drag this out as long as they possibly can. In the meantime they expect Jamie to sit on his hands and remain silent,” he said. “I think the time has come when he cannot reasonably be expected to do it any longer, especially given the current circumstances within the pProvence.”




POLICE failed yesterday in a bid to halt a High Court action by seven men acquitted of a paramilitary attack on a joint police and British army patrol in Belfast 21 years ago.

A judge refused to dismiss the claim for damages after ruling that a delay in issuing proceedings has not prejudiced the defendant. A test case brought by Danny Petticrew, one of the so-called Ballymurphy Seven, will now proceed to a full trial. Mr Petticrew (37) is seeking compensation for wrongful detention, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a bomb attack on an RUC and military patrol near the city’s Springfield Road in August 1991.

The West Belfast man, then aged 17, was taken to Castlereagh Holding (interrogation) Centre and, along with his co – accused, were later charged with offences including attempted murder. He was held in custody from April 1992 until September 1994 nearly two & half years. The case against him was discharged at trial on the basis that alleged admissions could not be used in evidence against him. Mr Petticrew claims his arrest was deliberately delayed and, because of his youth and vulnerability, he was unable to withstand questioning during repeated police interviews. He said that officers knew he was making false, unreliable and involuntary statements.

Lawyers for the chief constable applied to have the civil action thrown out due to the delay in bringing it. But Mr Justice Gillen yesterday refused their appeal against a decision not to grant the application. He accepted there had been ” inexcusable and inordinate delay ” in bring the case. However, the judge held that available transcripts from the original criminal trial, togeather with legal notes, meant defendant witnesses were in no more difficult a position now than if the claim had been brought in 1994.

” I am conscious that the allegations in this case amount to serious charges against persons and authorities within the state who are bound by laws publicly made and administered in the courts,” Mr Justice Gillen said. ” They amount to an assault on the rule of law if they are true and an affront to public  conscience. ” In those circumstances courts should be particularly cautious before driving from the seat of judgement those who wish to litigate such matters.”

Dismissing the police application, the judge said: ” The balance of justice lies in allowing such matters to proceed to trail if at all possible, so long of course as the defendant is not deprived of any realistic chance of defending the allegations due to the delay.” Outside the court Mr Petticrew expressed satisfaction that the actions brought by him and his six co-accused will go ahead. ” Something that happened 21 years ago is still having a massive effect on our lives today,” he said.





THE Sunday World newspaper has failed in an unprecedented legal bid to be able to name a man whose personal protection weapon was taken from him.

The High Court refused the newspaper’s application to set aside an anonymity order surrounding the man’ identified only as JR20. A judge held that publishing his name could increase the threat he was said to be under because it would also reveal that he no longer had a gun. The attempt to set aside the anonymity order is believed to be the first of its kind in Northern Ireland. A ban on naming JR20 was imposed during his unsuccessful challenge to the secretary of state’s decision to revoke his firearms licence.

It was granted on the basis of a risk to his life,assessed by the police and the security services as being ” moderate”. Despite having no involvement in his original judicial review case, The Sunday World’s publishers intervened to seek permission to identify him. Olivia O’Kane, for the newspaper, argued that such proceedings remained open and public and should be reported.

However, Mr Justice Weatherup ruled that anonymity order should remain in place. His decision was based on grounds of common-law, fairness , rather than JR20’s right to life, which, on the basis of a moderate threat assessment, did not meet the necessary threshold. Balancing open justice with reporting of legal proceedings against the man’s safety,the judge concluded that information which would identify him should not be published. Al through the challenge was unsuccessful, it has been interpreted as  being a precedent for further more interventions.

Dissidents in jail after judicial review

Five dissident republican suspects have gone back to prison after they challenged police moves to take them directly for questioning about other terrorist offences.

Dissidents in jail after judicial review

The judge dismissed the judicial review. (© UTV)

The men launched High Court proceedings following their transfer from Maghaberry Prison to Antrim Serious Crime Suite.

They are currently being held on remand in Roe House, along with other republican prisoners.

But on Wednesday the men were taken out of the prison to be interviewed in connection with allegations of preparing for acts of terrorism.

Police lawyers say the PSNI were granted permission to have the men taken out of Roe House.

The men, who all face other terrorist-related charges, sought an emergency judicial review. They argued that authorisation is required from a magistrate before police can take remand prisoners for further questioning.

Frank O’Donoghue QC, for the suspects, told the court on Thursday: “This is about the removal of prisoners from detention.

“It’s now done very strictly, we say, under judicial scrutiny once the person is charged.”

Paul McLaughlin, for the PSNI, told the court that the men had been arrested.

But following a break in proceedings judges were told a decision has been taken to return them to Maghaberry “for the time being”.

Mr McLaughlin added: “Thereafter police will decide what course to follow to continue their investigation.

“But for the present purposes the return of the prisoners to Maghaberry brings an end to the case.”

Lord Justice Higgins, sitting with Mr Justice Stephens, decided the case should then be dismissed.

Outside the court the men’s solicitor, Paul Pierce of Kevin R Winters and Co, said the case was taken to examine the procedures surrounding the decision to take the prisoners directly to a police station.

He added: “Our concerns have been vindicated in view of the fact that the police have decided to return each of the men to custody and they have indicated they will now review their position.

“The method by which these prisoners were produced is clearly open to abuse by any police officers who want to use a power which is not subject to any form of judicial scrutiny or legal restraint.”

%d bloggers like this: