NCJ Number
85434
Journal
Journal of Law and Society Volume: 9 Issue: 1 Dated: (Summer 1982) Pages: 115-126
Date Published
1982
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Attorneys serving as both defense counsel and prosecutors in Northern Ireland's 'Diplock' courts, whose procedures increase the likelihood that terrorists will be convicted, perceive that they are doing their duty under difficult circumstances and that they are professionals working in a highly competitive business.
Abstract
In 1972, the report of the Diplock Commission resulted in legislation that created the 'Diplock' courts, where offenses likely to be committed by terrorist offenders are tried by judges sitting alone, with trial by jury being excluded. Further, the standard for admissibility of confessions has been lowered from that of the common law which specified that confessions obtained through fear or favor are inadmissible to one which permits the admission of all statements obtained unless coerced as a result of inhuman or degrading treatment. A representative sample of 11 counsel who had served in Diplock courts was interviewed to determine their attitudes toward the courts and their role as counsel in these courts. The subjects, who had served as both defense counsel and prosecutors, were generally doing their duty and earning fees without complaint. None felt it would be necessary or useful for members of the bar to boycott the Diplock courts. None felt that the introduction of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland had altered the essential administration of justice. The perspectives of this sample of attorneys indicates how a professional group adapts to what for many outside the situation would be an insupportable, intolerable compromise with traditional principles of justice. Twenty notes and references are listed.