Terrorism has become one of the acute problems of our time, as a hard-to-control manifestation of cruelty and aggression. Usually, terrorism results from extreme dissatisfaction with the foreign or domestic (less often) policies of a country. The legal definition of the term is still ambiguous, but the best definition is considered to be the achievement of ideological, political, economic, or religious goals by violent means. Although the problem is quite acute, there are many measures, regulations, laws, and units to combat terrorism today. One of these is the Diplock Commission which was set up to reinforce existing measures to control and combat terrorism. This paper aims to analyze how the Diplock Commission was set up to look at ways of dealing with the legal aspects of controlling terrorism in a democratic society.
The Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act, passed in 1973, gives the security forces the ability to bring the terrorists before court. It also ensures safety and integrity, covering all the controversial legal issues (Spindlove & Simonsen, 2017). Thus, terrorist offenses were listed as “scheduled offenses,” and the measures served the security services well. Judges had to try scheduled offenses sitting alone, with more than the right of appeal. Unless the High Court granted the bail, it was prohibited, with strict conditions attached. Security forces had extended powers for search and seizure, moreover, one could hold a person on arrest without a warrant for seventy-two hours. The onus of proof was reversed for those arrested for explosives and weapons to prove their innocence.
Nationalists, Republicans, and civil liberty organizations opposed the introduction of “Diplock Courts.” Nonjury trials were established in response to witnessing intimidation by paramilitary groups. At its peak, there was more than 300 trial per year that were held without a jury. The government technically abolished Diplock courts in 2007, however, nonjury trials can still be held if there is a risk of jurors’ intimidation. Speaking about how it works in the context of a democratic society, one may notice that this was not a reaction to a violation of human rights, which is contradictory to democracy. Thus, in 2000 Terrorism Act was established, which reformed much of the mechanisms and powers dealing with terrorism. The act extended the definition of terrorism; thus, it also included intimidation of the public, influencing the government, and advancing a political, ideological, or religious cause.
Moreover, endangering a person’s life, involving serious violence against the person or damaging the property, and creating a serious threat to public health became also considered terrorism. This act was further complemented by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act of 2001, which addressed terrorism and foreign nationals (Spindlove & Simonsen, 2017). Although, civil rights movements opposed provisions of these acts, especially the points where the burden of proof is reserved in suspected terrorism cases. The basic principle of the Diplock Commission is trial with an only judge, thus, minimizing the threat of intimidation or attack. It seems to be an effective method of dealing with legal aspects of controlling terrorism since there were fewer possibilities for suspects to undertake crushing methods.
To conclude, one should mention that all the methods aiming to minimize the impact of offender groups seem to be controversial as it is not beneficial for some individuals. Similarly, the Diplock Courts were perceived debatably, despite some cases of child rights abuse by paramilitary groups. In some cases, children and entire families were banished from the area and moved to other regions of Britain.
Reference
Spindlove, J., & Simonsen, C. (2017). Terrorism today: The past, the players, the future. (6th ed.). Pearson.