Source: Sean O’Callaghan
The Guardian ran an article by Henry McDonald on 21st August entitled “Stakeknife could face perjury charges , says senior police officer”.
Before you ask, the ‘senior UK police officer’ is not named. Quelle surprise.
So the theory is this. Scappaticci went to court in 2003 to force the NI security minister to state publicly that he was not Stakeknife and therefore not an agent.
Now, says McDonald, he could be prosecuted for going to court and “denying he was a spy”.
But hold on a minute. He denied that he was a spy and the NI minister confirmed that.
So who would be prosecuted?
The NI minister who wrongly said he was not a spy, when he was? Or Scap who falsely said that he wasn’t when he was?
So would one or both be prosecuted? Lets look at the legislation
- – (1) Any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding who wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.
(2) The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.
(3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this Article, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.
(4) A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in Northern Ireland for the purposes of a judicial proceeding-
(a) in another part of Her Majesty’s dominions; or
(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside Her Majesty’s dominions; or
(c) in a tribunal of any foreign state;
shall, for the purposes of this Article, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in Northern Ireland.
(5) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court at the trial.
False written statements tendered in evidence
- – (1) Any person who in a written statement tendered in evidence in criminal proceedings by virtue of-
(a) section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, or
(b) Article 33 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981,
wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who in a written statement made in Northern Ireland and tendered in evidence in the Republic of Ireland in any criminal proceedings wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) or (2) shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both.
Aiders, abettors, suborners, etc.
- – (1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another-person to commit an offence against this Order shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a principal offender.
(2) Any person who incites another person to commit an offence against this Order shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both.
- A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Order, or of any offence declared by any other enactment to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false.
So it seems that the Minister could be prosecuted for falsely stating in judicial proceedings that he was not a spy and that Scap could be prosecuted for falsely making the same claim. In addition her civil servants and members of MI5, Special Branch, the Army or MI6 could also be prosecuted.
Sadly , the response of Jon Boutcher, if accurately reported, leaves a great deal to be desired.
The devil is in the detail of Article 14. At least two witnesses are needed for the Crown to prove perjury. Who will they be?
Meanwhile one has to ask who sponsored the Guardian article- dark forces, Henry?
I decided not to take my vacation, just yet, in case there is a miracle upon the Great Hill and government returns.
This would unleash great amounts of funds, such as would put Peace IV in the shade.
These are not my words but those of a great Guru I have discovered. He is deeply immersed in the workings of grants and , as he says ‘handouts’ from the State.
His name is Patrick Herd and he is the CEO of the Greater Waterworks Collective.
He has been many years in the Waterworks and knows its workings.
He held a workshop at the Queen’s University. I am always surprised at workshops. They are not shops and very little work is done, after ‘greetings’ , ‘introductions’ a speech, morning coffee, a speech, luncheon, ‘group work’, then ‘goodbyes’. I used to be told that the white people were hard working, now I’m not sure.
But this is digression.
Pat Herd was the main event. He talked of much wealth. He said that a group , if they played their cards right, could amass a great fortune. Income from many sources, Children in Need, the Heritage Lottery Fund, DRD and all government departments. Many community workers could be employed with such funds. Premises could be purchased. Events could be organised. He said that the Greater Waterworks Collective was second only to the Gasworks Partnership in income and assets. His chest was puffed out during this impressive speech. He told us that he had met Her Gracious Majesty , that the Open University had bestowed many degrees upon him and that he calls Mr Stockman “Harry”. He said that he employed almost 100 persons, in various guises, thus reducing employment in the Waterworks.
Many persons clapped this peroration . Two fellows did not.
From in front of me an old fellow asked “to what end?” This seemed to puzzle Pat. He asked for him to dilate.
“Cui Bono? ” the old chap said.
“I’m just an ordinary guy from the Waterworks”; was Pat’s reply.
Much adoring applause followed.
I had the temerity to ask this God-like Pat, if you have such wealth, why do you charge children £10 a head for a summer transition programme, for those going to big school?
Pat scowled. “you have not been long here” , he said, “do you think we’re a charity?”
So ended my Summer School. I have returned to CRAP and we are making plans. Not to be the Greater Waterworks Collective or to be the Gasworks fellows but to try to make a difference to some children.
My secretary said “why do you bother?”
Because I remember the young white British fellows who came to my village in 1967, I replied. The world is a smaller place than even the Waterworks.
It’s sad that , as far as I know ,no NI barrister has provided a similar critique. Of course, in the Bar Library, they are terrified of the Judiciary and/or they brown nose them every chance they get, at functions, dinner parties and who knows what else? So , what chance the public, whom they serve, ever getting the real picture?
The campaign to highlight the lamentable failure of the Judicial and HMCTS enabling or facilitation of disclosure abuse gathers pace as more examples are exposed to view. The willingness of some courts and HMCTS personnel to frustrate the law and criminal procedure rules has reached scandalous proportions. This is now a daily occurrence.
We have become like the old Soviet Union with a superficially attractive criminal code that the judicial establishment ignore. Not only do the Courts increasingly fail to deal with these issues but often in their anxiety to let the Crown ‘off the hook’ they ingeniously find ways to blame the very lawyers bringing to the courts attention CPS failures. Sometimes this is accompanied with unwarranted rudeness and discourtesy and bogus criticism displayed to defence advocates in front of clients and their families.
My own recent example of the court failing to deal with the almost total absence…
View original post 4,302 more words