• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

What chance is there of a fair trial for man accused of Hyde Park Bomb?


Heligoland

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
2,333
On July 20th 1982, the IRA attacked a unit of the British Army on ceremonial duty in Hyde Park, London. The devastating improvised explosive device killed a number of soldiers and sent a shock wave through the British establishment.



This event, and a related attack at Regent's Park, were seen as legitimate after the British army had attacked the ceremonial colour parties at Republican funerals in Ireland. However the British media expressed outrage, particularly as the attack had killed horses. One animal who survived the bomb was later named as "Horse of the Year". The late Margaret Thatcher said "These callous and cowardly crimes have been committed by evil, brutal men who know nothing of democracy. We shall not rest until they are brought to justice."

In 1987 a man was tried for the Regent's Park bomb and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Just before he was due for release, his conviction was found to be "unsafe" by the British Court of Appeal.

In the light of the hysteria surrounding the event, and the length of time that has elapsed since it occurred, is there not a strong chance that any trial of the Donegal man arrested this weekend and charged with the Hyde Park attack will also be subject to a similar "unsafe" legal practices?

Hyde Park bomb: man charged with killing soldiers in IRA attack | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Donegal man for court over 1982 Hyde Park bombing - UK News | Online Newspaper | The Irish Times - Wed, May 22, 2013
 
Last edited:


freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,455
Lets have a look at the evidence.
The same arguments could be used in the unlikely event that anyone would end up being charged with the Dublin Monaghan bombings.
After all these years the British DPP must feel that they have some evidence to justify a charge.
Did this person present himself for arrest at Gatwick or was it a matter of his name being on the "Wanted" and this was the first time he entered the U.K. in years?

The British must be relying on forensic evidence, fingerprint found on the exploded device or something rather than admissions in custody.
If convicted will the Good Friday Agreement release policy apply?
 

Heligoland

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
2,333
Danny McNamee, initially found guilty of the Regent's Park bomb despite having no ties with the IRA and very little evidence to link him to the case, has qualified as a lawyer himself.

The British Secret Service gave evidence in camera at his appeal.

McNamee and his defence team were excluded from the first three days of the appeal because of a public interest immunity clause. During that period the three appeal judges are understood to have received information from the intelligence services, information that McNamee says prejudiced the final appeal judgment.
Rebel without applause | News | The Lawyer
 

Didimus

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,285
This event, and a related attack at Regent's Park, were seen as legitimate after the British army had attacked the ceremonial colour parties at Republican funerals in Ireland.
How did they attack colour parties? Bomb them? Machine guns?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,765
This event, and a related attack at Regent's Park, were seen as legitimate after the British army had attacked the ceremonial colour parties at Republican funerals in Ireland.
Aside from terrorist organisations and the then political wings of terrorist organisation who saw this as legitimate?

In 1987 a man was tried for the Regent's Park bomb and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Just before he was due for release, his conviction was found to be "unsafe" by the British Court of Appeal.
Quite right too. Forensic evidence which implicated others was witheld from the defence. So you clear the man and the pursue the others right?

In the light of the hysteria surrounding the event, and the length of time that has elapsed since it occurred, is there not a strong chance that any trial of the Donegal man arrested this weekend and charged with the Hyde Park attack will also be subject to a similar "unsafe" legal practices?
Hysteria? They blew up part of Regent's ****ing park and murdered a number of people. It's not "hysteria" to want terrorists convicted for this, no more than the hunt for the 7/7 bombers was hysteria, no more than the hunt for Brevik was "Hysteria". The length of time passed ensures that any such "hysteria" has died down any way.

As some are fond of telling us, time has moved on and people change. It would be foolish to think the SF of 2013 are similar to that of 1982, similarly it's baseless to think the British justice system is in the same shape now as it was back then.

Given that the Brits can't even get rid of a lunatic terror risk who shouldn't be in their country, is there really a strong chance that someone's going to be able to be convicted without the courts of appeal in the UK or Europe identifying it?

Or to ask it a slighlty different way: What basis do you have to believe it will happen based on your knowledge of the current system for murder trials and appeals in the UK? Do you have a basis to believe someone in London just decided to make stuff up against this guy 30 years later for no reason?

The length of time is irrelevant. Being good at evading justice for 30 years shouldn't be a reason for the courts not to pursue it when a suspect is identified.

War criminals, serial killers and individual criminals can go decades without being identified. When they're identified we expect them to be prosecuted. What makes this different? If additional suspects in the Pat Finuncane murder or the Omagh bombings were identified should they not be pursued?
 
Last edited:

Seanie Lemass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
20,128
Brits seem intent on pursuing these old cases. In terms of time, it is the equivalent of them having charged someone in the late 1980s with something that happened during the 50s Border campaign. The war is long over. And I would apply the same to those involved in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
In the light of the hysteria surrounding the event, and the length of time that has elapsed since it occurred, is there not a strong chance that any trial of the Donegal man arrested this weekend and charged with the Hyde Park attack will also be subject to a similar "unsafe" legal practices?
Point 1, the hysteria surrounding the event, is diminished by, not added to, by point two, the length of time that has elapsed since it occurred. So much less chance of an 'unsafe' trial.
 

rapparree

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,724
Lets have a look at the evidence.
The same arguments could be used in the unlikely event that anyone would end up being charged with the Dublin Monaghan bombings.
After all these years the British DPP must feel that they have some evidence to justify a charge.
Did this person present himself for arrest at Gatwick or was it a matter of his name being on the "Wanted" and this was the first time he entered the U.K. in years?

The British must be relying on forensic evidence, fingerprint found on the exploded device or something rather than admissions in custody.
If convicted will the Good Friday Agreement release policy apply?
it looks like the investigation into the hyde park bombing has still been ongoing until they find a perpretrator

the gardai investigation of the dublin monaghan bombings was wrapped up within weeks without a single person being arrested. so it's not simply unlikely that no one will ever be arrested and charged, it isnt going to happen period, since usually you need to be investigating a crime in order to be able to pick up the perpetrators
 
Last edited:

FloatingVoterTralee

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
997
If people want to describe terrorism and murder as "legitimate", then such is very much a minority view at this point. If new evidence suggests a possible lead in this case, then justice must be seen to be done, regardless of the time delay.
 

Heligoland

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
2,333
Hysteria? They blew up part of Regent's ****ing park and murdered a number of people.
Yeah, your hysterical reaction is an example of it. People shouting and swearing are not usually thinking very clearly.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,765
Why? Do you think it might prejudice his trial?
I think if I were on trial for something and my family were going to make a statement, I'd rather they focused on "Sync didn't do it" as opposed to "Aw you guys, this was AGES ago".
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,434
I think if I were on trial for something and my family were going to make a statement, I'd rather they focused on "Sync didn't do it" as opposed to "Aw you guys, this was AGES ago".
Indeed. They have changed the argument from 'what a colossal waste of police and judicial time, pursuing an innocent man' to 'this is so unfair, you pinkie-promised that he was going to get away with it'.
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,545
it looks like the investigation into the hyde park bombing has still been ongoing until they find a perpretrator

the gardai investigation of the dublin monaghan bombings was wrapped up within weeks without a single person being arrested. so it's not simply unlikely that no one will ever be arrested and charged, it isnt going to happen period, since usually you need to be investigating a crime in order to be able to pick up the perpetrators
Very true; the British authorities have known for over 40 years exactly who murdered 25 unarmed civilians in the Ballymurphy & Derry massacres, yet no-one has been arrested, let alone charged. Yet 3 people, Quigley, Kavanagh & McNamee were convicted of the Hyde Park attack on British soldiers and one of those was found to be innocent after serving 11 years [more that all the British Forces for all the murders they perpetrated in Ireland]. Double standards or what?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,389
On July 20th 1982, the IRA attacked a unit of the British Army on ceremonial duty in Hyde Park, London. The devastating improvised explosive device killed a number of soldiers and sent a shock wave through the British establishment.



This event, and a related attack at Regent's Park, were seen as legitimate after the British army had attacked the ceremonial colour parties at Republican funerals in Ireland. However the British media expressed outrage, particularly as the attack had killed horses. One animal who survived the bomb was later named as "Horse of the Year". The late Margaret Thatcher said "These callous and cowardly crimes have been committed by evil, brutal men who know nothing of democracy. We shall not rest until they are brought to justice."

In 1987 a man was tried for the Regent's Park bomb and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Just before he was due for release, his conviction was found to be "unsafe" by the British Court of Appeal.

In the light of the hysteria surrounding the event, and the length of time that has elapsed since it occurred, is there not a strong chance that any trial of the Donegal man arrested this weekend and charged with the Hyde Park attack will also be subject to a similar "unsafe" legal practices?

Hyde Park bomb: man charged with killing soldiers in IRA attack | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Donegal man for court over 1982 Hyde Park bombing - UK News | Online Newspaper | The Irish Times - Wed, May 22, 2013

I don't see why.
 

Heligoland

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
2,333
I think if I were on trial for something and my family were going to make a statement, I'd rather they focused on "Sync didn't do it" as opposed to "Aw you guys, this was AGES ago".
But you have such confidence in the British judicial system that a statement like that would have no effect on the trial, right?

Or don't you..?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top