The Gazette 1971

EDITORIAL "Law and the Individual"

In the course of h's presidential address at the Annual General Meeting, instead of the customary recital of matters which had engaged the attention of the Council .'• ; nce the last meeting, Mr. McGrath wisely decided to give his views on the philosoph'cal principles surround- ing the thorny question of "Law and the Individual". The President is to be warmly congratulated upon an inspiring address, where he restated some unchanging principles too often forgotten, particularly >n this period of unease and of economic distress. Mr. McGrath put his finger on some of the causes—the growth of bureau- cracy, the pollution of the atmosphere, the dehuinan- isation of work, the remote and impersonal authority of large corporations, but, above all, the pursuit of material gain as an end in itself—wlvch threatened the freedom of the individual. T o o often eternal values have been replaced by downright pragmatism. Despite our supposed Christianity, legal positivism, which decrees that a law should be obeyed because it is the will of the State, has taken a firm root amongst some cynical legislators and administrators, who are The understanding of human rights is essentially a moral legal concept, and bureaucrats cannot be allowed to treat them as a mere concept of administrative con- venience. The cry for "law and order" as the epitome of Government authority should at all times be sub- ordinated to the dignity of the individual. There is cer- tainly something fundamentally wrong in society if material gain is elevated to the standard by which all other activities are to be judged. Undoubtedly the leadership of fearless and upright lawyers who will seek to maintain absolute standards of integrity is more than ever necessary today. The Compton Commission Report most critical of our Supreme Court when it rightly affirms fundamental rights by declaring some legislation unconstitutional. Mr. McGrath, like Mr. Justce ()'Byrne in the Sinn Fein Funds case (1950 I.R.), rightly sticssed the importance of the sentiments ex- pressed in the Preamble to the Constitution, which are too often overlooked. The President reminded us that our fundamental rights were inabenable natural rights rooted in the nature of man and not subject to wide- spread interference by the State.

Sir Edmund Compton, a former British Comptroller and Auditor General, without legal qualifications, who had already received high honours from the British Government, and who had undertaken alleged impartial duties as Ombudsman in Northern Ireland, was appointed to head a Commission to inquire into allega- tions of brutality undertaken by the British Army against untried political internees there. Given the fact that Sir Edmund had already acted as Chairman of the Irish Ex-Serviceman's Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust, it is difficult to believe how any Government could imag'r.e that he could produce a genuinely im- partial report. But doubtless he will be rewarded for what the British authorities would consider to be an ingenious whitewashing operation. While all forms of violence are unreservedly condemned, yet the excuse that the inquiry could not be held in public "in "order to ensure the personal safety of security forces" seems hardly plausible and certainly not credible; furthermore legal representatives were not given the opportunity of cross-examination. It is not then surprising that most internees refused to give evidence in such conditions. Thus, save in regard to two cases, all evidence against the internees is stated to be hearsay. The distinction in the report between "brutality" as "an inhuman or savage form of cruelty implying a disposition to inflict suffering, coupled with indifference to or pleasure in the victim's pain" and "ill-treatment" where no such indifference or pleasure was displayed, is unreal, as there is l'ttle to choose between them. This leads to the opportunist conclusion that, while there were some cases of ill-treatment, no cases of

brutality have taken place. How the lawyer member of the Gommission, not to speak of any lawyer, could honestly subscribe to this view, in the face of the evidence particularly against those who are presumed to be innocent, is hard to swallow, and how cruel methods of interrogation which had been foisted upon the natives of Gyprus and Aden could at any time be condoned by anyone in the United Kingdom surpasses understanding. It is satisfactory to note that, as a result of their independent investigates, the Irish Government have readied the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence of acts of brutality and inhuman conduct on the part of the British Army in Northern Ireland against specified internees to warrant bringing a case before the European Gommission of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the British Government for specified breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights. This is reinforced by the report of the International Com- mission of the Red Cross about the state of the intern- ment Camp in Long Kesh. It is thought that Lord Parker and Lord Gardiner, having examined the condi- tions under which internees are alleged to be interro- gated, may lack the courage to suggest necessary wide- spread improvements, and to indict the British security forces for crimes against humanity. It would seem that, as in the case of Greece, tortures and inhuman conduct by British troops in Northern Ireland will eventually be forcefully condemned by International opinion and the futile argument that such methods are necessary to elicit further information will be properly exposed as worthless.

176