Introduction
Since terrorism is one of the acute problems of modern times, states seek to establish and develop counter-terrorism methods aimed at combating this global phenomenon. One of these methods was the Diplock Commission, which was created to strengthen the control measures against terrorism (Simonsen & Spindlove, 2018). Although being legally effective, the Diplock Commission has received widespread public condemnation due to violations of democratic rights and freedoms.
Origins and Purpose of the Diplock Commission
The history of the Diplock Commission originates in Northern Ireland. Under a law passed in 1973, the security forces were able to bring terrorists to justice through the process of the Diplock Commission (Simonsen & Spindlove, 2018). Trial conditions under the Diplock Commission were strict, as judges had to hear cases alone, and bail was highly regulated (Simonsen & Spindlove, 2018).
Trial Procedures and Expanded Law Enforcement Powers
Applying this law expanded the powers of law enforcement agencies, since it became possible to hold a person without a warrant under arrest for three days (Simonsen & Spindlove, 2018). At the same time, the burden of proving innocence fell on the accused, who practically had no legal opportunity to resist the prosecution. The basic principle of the work of the Diplock Commission was to minimize pressure on the court. This method could be effective, since the presence of one judge significantly reduced the possibility of the influence of terrorist methods of intimidation (Simonsen & Spindlove, 2018).
Controversies, Public Response, and Abolition
However, the ability to exceed the powers, to detain under arrest without special evidence, and to exclude the right to variability of opinions was contrary to the principles of the democratic community. Widespread public dissatisfaction with the Diplock Commission was based on the need to balance the fight against terrorism and individual freedoms. However, due to widespread displeasure, the Diplock Commission was abolished.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Diplock Commission was an effective counter-terrorism measure, but it violated the rights and freedoms of the accused. While the Diplock Commission has been able to do significant work in resolving legal issues related to terrorism, it has proven inapplicable in a democratic society. Measures to combat terrorism must remain large-scale and highly qualified, but they should not violate civil rights.
Reference
Simonsen, C., & Spindlove, J. (2018). Terrorism today: The past, the players, the future, 6th ed. Pearson.