The head of the Irish Republican Prisoners Welfare Association and leading member of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement Marian Price is currently being held in the hospital wing of Maghaberry High Security Prison, an otherwise male facility. Price, who was convicted of the Old Bailey bombings in 1973, has had her life licence revoked by Owen Patterson, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
As a committed anti-GFA Republican, Price is no stranger to the criminal justice system. In the past number of years she has been charged with attending an illegal march, providing property (a mobile phone) for the purposes of terrorism and encouraging support for an illegal organisation. As of yet, Price has not been convicted of the latter two offences. The statement by Owen Paterson reads:
The Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, has revoked the life licence of Marian McGlinchey after she was charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and following the recommendation of the Parole Commissioners that the risk of serious harm posed by Marian McGlinchey has increased significantly.
Mr Paterson has used the powers conferred on him by Parliament in the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. Mrs McGlinchey has the right to make representations to the Parole Commissioners which they will consider.
Mr Paterson said: “My priority is the safety of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government will not hesitate to use all the powers at its disposal under the law to counter the residual terrorist threat.”
Unsurprisingly her imprisonment has provoked outrage from within the ranks of anti-GFA Republicans, who seize upon most acts by the British establishment as further proof of their villainy.
The political imprisoning of republican Marian Price by British direct ruler Owen Patterson represents an act of utter repression against the Irish people. That an unaccountable British politician can arbitrarily remove an Irish citizen’s freedom in their own country demonstrates clearly, despite recent fawning to the contrary, that we have not entered into a new era of relationships between the two islands. What we are witnessing is an assertion of British sovereignty in Ireland.
More surprising perhaps has been the support Price has received from those she has labelled traitors and sell-outs, namely Sinn Féin, who have called for her imitate release.
Marian Price is entitled to due process and the revoking of her licence is completely unacceptable.
The move by Owen Patterson amounts to detention without trial; this runs contrary to natural justice. The justice system needs to be based on human rights protection; the revoking of Marian Price’s licence runs contrary to that.
We have already raised our concerns on this issue with the British Secretary of State and will do the same with the Justice Minister as a matter of urgency.
Although there is no doubt but that Price strongly opposes the Peace Process, and in all likelihood, supports armed groups such as the Real IRA, the fact that she has been imprisoned before any trial has been carried out, with no evidence brought against her for her to defend herself, makes Republicans of all hues deeply uncomfortable. It is of course the case that Price was tried for the Old Bailey bombings, and as such the revocation of her licence is legal. However, any act which places Sinn Féin and other mainstream Republicans squarely behind extreme Republicans such as Price, is one which needs to be carefully thought through and the potential propaganda value balanced against legitimate security concerns.
Let us hope this is the case.
Good piece.
As regards SF I would note that you dont have to like someone or agree with them to believe that they are entitled to due process, and Marian Price is being denied it. Very simple.
Ross
I could not disagree with you more and your blogg fails to grasp the full implications involved in the Price Case. There has been a steady creep of the NI Executive overstepping its authority in a way that usurps the jurisdiction of the courts. The facts of the current case are for the courts to decide not the executive and Article 6 ECHR support the Courts on this one and not the executive, as follows,
85. In that connection the Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the right of access to a tribunal guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 (see, inter alia, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, pp. 510-11, § 40 et seq., and Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 25, 27 May 2004). APICELLA v. ITALY (Application no. 64890/01) –2006 Judgment
The ECtHR has also ruled in other cases that placing anyone taken into custody should be proportional to any pending charges –the NI granted bail –because even if found guilty Price’s conduct, can be immoral, despicable, or outright appalling -but in the scheme of things it is not that serious.
What is serious is the conflict between the executive, due process of the law and judicial jurisdiction. While the ‘law’ means whatever those in political power want it to mean in places like Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, or many similar states, NI is supposed to be democratic society.
Christy Walsh
Donnchadh, thank you. The above wasn’t a criticism of SF, more highlighting that this is generating support and sympathy beyond anti-GFA groups. Far more dangerous to peace than people holding pieces of paper (the above photo is the reason she is being charged with encouraging support) is state action which allows those opposed to the GFA to paint themselves as the victims of state repression and generate a wide base of support.
Christy, thanks for the comment. Nice to see that people who’ve been affected by the issues discussed here actually read this. My main purpose in posting this wasn’t to put forward a particular argument but to highlight the potential issue here. Unlike most other contributors to this blog, I’m not a legal expert, however my understanding is that if someone is sentenced to life in prison but are realised on licence they can have their licence revoked pretty much at will by the executive. Perhaps there are wider issues about separation of powers which surround this, but that’s my understanding of the situation as is. Happy to be corrected.
I largely agree with you that the charges against Price, providing a phone, hold a piece of paper etc, are on the lower end of the scale. It is of course possible that there is intelligence which Paterson has received which is not public which has informed his assertion that the “risk of serious harm posed by Marian McGlinchey has increased significantly.”
All things told, the decision to revoke the licence seems unwise.
Ross
Thanks for your response -it seems we are each neither legal experts but pointing up the flaws in a volatile mix of powers and abuse of powers. The revoke of Ms Price’s license was not done on grounds of any risk of serious harm but on alleged breach of terror laws, ie, being of assistance to a terrorist organisation –the assistance was the sum total of what the photo reveals –she held the piece of paper. On the flip side if she were so wrapped up in things then one could reasonably expect a violent backlash by those who would see her arrest as petty and trumped up –not disimilar to recent riots as result of PSNI removing flags –and then appologised afterwards for having done so. Her license was not simply revoked by the executive –instead formal legal steps were taken –and when the court granted bail then the executive took the law into its own hands.
To draw a parallel with my own case –as soon as the Porsecution case was completely exposed and collapsed David Ford stepped in to revive the malicious prosecution against me –in the following terms AND I quote,
“If Walsh’s application succeeds it may gain a higher profile and raise questions over other convictions.” … “I have therefore decided on behalf of the Department that you are…” guilty.
This of course is not only an extreme abuse of power but it is approved by that other political arm of the state the NIHRC –who in January 2011 finally stated its position on my false imprisonment and is of the view that I ‘got what I deserved’.
NI is heading toward very uncertain future and violent dissidents are not the threat.
C.
The fact that the licence was revoked after bail was granted does make the ‘risk of serious harm’ defence look more than a bit suspect.
The claim about any risk true or false is not the main issue of concern here the usurping the role of the court is. Also prior to granting of bail in these type of cases a risk assessment is done and the Judge is guided by the Security Services who were not alleging any serious risk at the bail application.
In other cases where licenses have been revoked there has been some form of demonstrable threat or danger –for example Knight threatened two women –Stone went kamikaze at Stormont –Price does not fit the profile of these cases.
Good point. As far as I recall the argument brought by the PSNI against bail was that she was likely to involve herself in protests against the Queens visit.