‘N Ireland: what value do Unionist politicians put on a citizens life?’ by Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair

Imagine, you’re being escorted into a Jury deliberation room by a court usher and when you ask for some parting words of wisdom she leaves you with this worldly wise dictum:

“When those charged with upholding the law break the law in the name of the law, there is no law.”

Having summarised the law and primary material facts of the case, the judge advised:” ‘The law’ is a creature devoid of emotions and obligates us to impartially adhere to certain universal human values enshrined in legal statutes and caselaw.”

The Judge further emphasised, there are certain rights in a civilised society that are deemed sacrosanct i.e the right to life is an absolute right. Hence, the state cannot have acted lawfully if it’s proven the killing of a citizen was in truth not due to that citizen presenting a real and imminent danger to the life or property of others.

To feel a rush of empathy and/or bias in a highly charged case is as natural as breathing. But fair-minded and morally decent people will remain cognisant of the fact: injustices can occur when emotions cloud adherence to the law and impartial consideration of the actual and materially relevant evidence. For instance, the Jury would err if it regarded passionately delivered mitigation of guilt factors as relevant to deciding whether to adjudge the defendant guilty or not guilty i.e reasons and excuses for proven unlawful conduct become relevant only at the post-conviction sentencing stage of a case.

In the jury room, you examined all the evidence adduced and decided it was time to reach a verdict in the xxxxxx case. Firstly, you know the forensic and pathology evidence proved Soldier A gave false evidence: this deceased fellow-citizen was not as alleged shot while about to throw a bomb with a clearly visible light fuse and supposedly got blown up a side street when that non-existent bomb supposedly exploded beside him. Secondly, during cross-examination Soldier A conceded that the evidence disproved his version of events and that he could not justify why he twice shot this unarmed civilian? Thirdly, Soldier A acknowledged he received comprehensive and regular ongoing training on using his firearm in different situations. However, having been exposed as a liar, Soldier A belatedly suggested that maybe he was suffering from stress when he twice took aim and shot dead this innocent civilian who had a right to life.

You and other Jury members return before the Judge to announce your verdict: Guilt of Manslaughter. You add, “The Jury hope this does justice to the victim and his grieving family.” You further state “The Jury request the Court consider showing a measure of leniency to Soldier A due to him serving in a tense and violent conflict situation at the time of his offence.”

The following day, the Judge reconvenes the case to deliver his judgement. He begins by stating “Every officer of the law is duty-bound to protect the rights of every citizen and none is more important than their right to life.“ The Judge advises he has given due consideration to all submissions on sentencing: the prosecution requested a Life Sentence; the defendant asked for a suspended sentence or conditional discharge; and the Jury in effect requested a mid-point sentence be imposed.

Based on the above facts, I would recommend a life sentence and would further propose the Home Office conduct a parole review hearing after a ten year period of incarceration.

Remember: when those charged with upholding are allowed to break the law, there is no law!

Now, how would British Unionists in particular address the above case. Firstly, would you find Solider A guilty? If yes, on what basis? If not, why not?

Finally, go put the above case to the DUP, UUP, TUV and PUP and ascertain their opinion…