174 / 196
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have been replaced by downright pragmatism.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
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.
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
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