113 / 336
(6) The fifth point was noticeable even in relation
to those who were sent in to take important
written statements;
(7) The interviewers and statement takers found
themselves detailed for the work by chance and
did not, on the whole, appear to be briefed or
to brief themselves for the task;
(8) Many of the interviews, including those directly
preceding the taking of statements, seem to
have ended on an inconclusive note, or
arbitrarily when a breakthrough had been
achieved, and in the later instances, as well as
the former, not only one but both of the inter-
viewers if more than one) were changed.
The Court finds that the prosecution are left with a
substantial number of points which call in vain for a
rational explanation. Even though much of the
evidence of physical ill-treatment does not seem to be
supported, nevertheless the prosecution cannot dis-
charge an onus through a possible failure of the
defence to prove as much as is alleged.
As colleagues of the murdered men, the investi-
gators believed, probably on substantial grounds, that
they were investigating the right men. But the criminal
law demands that not only the evidence, but the
means of obtaining it, shall be above suspicion.
On the facts of this case the Court is not satisfied
that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt, in relation to the accused Hetherington,
McCune and Dougan, that he was not subjected to
degrading treatment in order to obtain the statements
[filed on, or that the statements were not so obtained.
Jhe statements are therefore rejected, and, since there
l s
no other evidence against the accused they must be
^qu i t t ed on all counts.
[R. v. Hetherington, Dougan, McGrogan, Young,
j^rrelly and McCune
— Belfast City Commission —
Lowry L.C.J.—unreported—13th March, 1975.]
A c c u s e d y o u n g b o y s w h o p l e ad g u i l ty t o t h r o w i ng
petrol b o m b s h a v e p r i s on s e n t e n c es s u s p e n d e d.
Judgment delivered on 28th February, 1975, by
O'Donnell J.
Jn this case the defendants have pleaded guilty to
c
°nspiracy to intimidate, and to throw petrol bombs
a t
Roman Catholic homes in the Antrim area.
1
have taken some time to consider the appropriate
Punishment, and since my decision may appear unduly
e
nient,
I
set out the consideration which motivated
and the principle which I have applied in dealling
M
t h e S e y o u n
S People.
More and more young people both Republican and
oyalist are appearing before the Courts. It must be
^cognised that all these are part of our future. It
U s t
further be recognised that many of these young
People become involved in violence because of associa-
1Q
ns with their fellows or community pressures or
^ecause of genuinely held beliefs or fears, and that
ost if
n o t a l
j
w o u l (
j
n e v e r
have appeared in Court
a
't not been for the present turmoil in our com-
^unity. While the Court must be concerned to ensure
a t
the public are protected, and wrongdoers
110
punished, it has in my view an equal duty to the
community to try and ensure that its future in the
form of its youth, recognise that hatred, fear, and
violence have brought our community to its present
state, and to try and turn them to a more constructive
attitude to our problems.
The easy option for a Court is to sentence to long
terms of imprisonment or detention anyone however
young who has become involved in violence. But if a
Court can see a real possibility of a young person
forsaking violence, and violent associations, then
whether he be Republican or Loyalist, whether he
recognises or does not recognise the Court, the cal-
culated risk of leniency in my opinion should be taken.
Imprisonment in most cases will simply confine the
young people with and subject them to, the influences
which have brought them before the Court in the first
place. On release they will have become more hardened
and more convinced, and readier to continue in
violence.
It is of course obvious that each case must be
examined carefully on its own facts, and there will be
cases where leniency cannot be extended. In this case,
I have seen and heard all these young boys and their
parents and I think that I am justified in taking the
calculated risk of not sending them to prison or
borstal.
I propose to pass sentences on all counts of 2 years'
imprisonment to run concurrently, but to suspend
these sentences for a period of 2 years.
I also fine £100 in each case. I allow 3 months to
pay. In default 6 months imprisonment.
I propose to place the parent of each boy under rule
of bail in the sum of £250.
[Belfast City Commission —
The Queen
v.
Cameron
Mclntyre, Brian Nesbitt, Norman Moffett, and 9
others.]
Notices
LOST WILLS
Patrick Cullinan, deceased, late of 69, Anne Devlin Park,
Ballyroan, Dublin 14.
Any solicitor or person having knowledge of a will made
by the deceased who died on 27th November, 1974, please
communicate with Porter, Morris & Company, 10, Clare
Street, Dublin 2. Solicitors for the next of kin.
Hugh O'Neill Lennox, deceased, late of 43 St. Fintan's Road
Sutton and formerly of 41 Stiles Road, Clontarf Dublin!
Would any solicitor having knowledge of a Will for the
above-named deceased who died recently kindly get in
touch with Arthur Cox & Co., Solicitors, 42/43, St.
Stephen's Green, Dublin 2.
Michael Carty, late of Loughrea, Co. Galway, former
Parliamentary Secretary and T.D. Any person having a
Will of the above deceased who died on the 23rd of
April 1975, would they please contact the undersigned
solicitor for the next of kin.
Florence G. MacCarthy, Solicitor, Loughrea, Co. Galway.
Telephone—Loughrea : 58:
Solicitor's Office anxious to build up a comprehensive library,
wish to purchase law books, reports, statutes and
periodicals. Willing to purchase entire library or small
quantities of books. Condition not important Repllies to
Box 117.
Typing work done at home.
Replies to Box 118.
years legal experience.