Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
What is Harvard vs Trump About? Mon Apr 21, 2025 07:00 | James Alexander Trump's clash with Harvard shows a deeper culture war over what universities should be, with the Government pushing for merit and neutrality while Harvard clings to power and privilege, says Prof James Alexander.
The post What is Harvard vs Trump About? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Mon Apr 21, 2025 00:53 | Richard Eldred A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Trans Activists at London Demo Called for TERFs to be Hanged, and Defaced Seven Statues, Including N... Sun Apr 20, 2025 19:00 | Toby Young Trans rights activists held a demo in London yesterday to protest Wednesday's Supreme Court decision and defaced seven statues, including Nelson Mandela's and Millicent Fawcett's.
The post Trans Activists at London Demo Called for TERFs to be Hanged, and Defaced Seven Statues, Including Nelson Mandela?s appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Guardian Ditches ?Settled Science? for ?Climate Justice? in Effort to Avoid Reality Sun Apr 20, 2025 17:00 | Charles Rotter In the Guardian's latest climate gobbledegook, Friederike Otto redefines climate change as a "crisis of justice", focusing on moralising and social justice rather than the science, argues Charles Rotter.
The post Guardian Ditches ?Settled Science? for ?Climate Justice? in Effort to Avoid Reality appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Banks and Business are Talking Sense on Climate at Last. But it Must not be Just Talk Sun Apr 20, 2025 15:00 | Richard Eldred Corporations and banks are shifting from "green-washing" to "green-hushing", but unless this marks real change, it's just more empty promises, warns Bjorn Lomborg.
The post Banks and Business are Talking Sense on Climate at Last. But it Must not be Just Talk appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Will intergovernmental institutions withstand the end of the "American Empire"?,... Sat Apr 05, 2025 07:15 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?127 Sat Apr 05, 2025 06:38 | en
Disintegration of Western democracy begins in France Sat Apr 05, 2025 06:00 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?126 Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:39 | en
The International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism by Amichai Chikli and Na... Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:31 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
No Justice – No Surprise!
national |
crime and justice |
news report
Tuesday December 09, 2014 17:39 by Political Hostage

Decision more jaundiced than judicial!
In the High Court today Justice Peter Kelly rejected Michael McKevitt's application to overturn the Minister of Justice’s refusal to grant him enhanced one-third remission. In arriving at his decision, Justice Kelly deliberately chose not to adhere to two previous High Court decisions [Ryan and Farrell], where it was decided that prisoners were entitled to enhanced remission once they were of good conduct and had engaged in twenty-five hours of “authorised structured activities” each week.
Michael’s application for enhanced remission stood on similar grounds to the previously cited Niall Farrell. Both are republican prisoners detained in E2 Portlaoise Prison. Both have been of good conduct during their respective periods of detention. And both completed the weekly 25-hours of authorised structured activities. However, here the similarities end. On August 8th Justice Hogan overturned the Minister for Justice’s decision to refuse Niall Farrell enhanced remission and ordered him to be immediately released. While, as a result of today’s High Court decision, Michael (65) now faces his fourteenth Christmas in prison. Where is the legal consistency to be found here? Where is Justice in these divergent and discriminating rulings?
Justice Kelly’s decision today not to follow two previous High Court rulings is highly unorthodox. Under normal circumstances Justice Kelly should have been bound by the rulings in Ryan and Farrell. For it is a feature of the Irish legal system that courts of similar stature [in this instance, the High Court] are bound by one another’s decisions in the interest of legal certainty. Indeed legal convention holds that it is a matter for superior courts or courts of appeal to overturn the decisions of inferior courts. However, those familiar with the Irish judicial system’s treatment of Michael will not be surprised by unorthodox legal decisions. Michael has never been subject to normal legal rules!
If one takes a step back and adopts a wider perspective, it is clear that Michael has been discriminated against. Contrast his ongoing detention with Niall Farrell’s welcome release. And note how from the outset Michael’s application for enhanced remission has been met with obfuscation, delay upon delay, a lack of transparency, heavy handed cell searches, the confiscation of all of his legal documents and a continuing refusal to return them, the re-writing of the prison rule-book, specially convened emergency hearings of the Supreme Court to overturn judgements that could prove favourable to Michael, and even – at one point – the unavailability of members of the judiciary to hear his case.
These are the features which have characterised this legal process. These are the lengths the Irish state has gone to keep one man detained. And this is the price Michael has had to pay for his republican beliefs!
Related Link: http://www.michaelmckevitt.com
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (1 of 1)
Jump To Comment: 1While The Judge's decision may well be wrong, you are incorrect to state he was bound by previous High Court decisions, these are just persuasive and not binding on him..