Talk:Diplock court

Continued until the 90s?

The article seems to be internally inconsistent on this: I believe that the later mention is correct, and they continued until some time this year. Alai 05:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently in use?

It seems that Diplock courts are still being used in Northern Ireland, such as the current trial of Solicitor Manmohan 'Johnny' Sandhu in Belfast (BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8056017.stm). Not sure how to get this into the article though. 82.3.75.186 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the article, there is still provision for non-jury trials in NI (as elsewhere in the UK). This is on a much-restricted basis when compared to Diplock, so can't really be fairly described as "Diplock courts". You could note the trial as an example of a post-Diplock non-jury trial. Mooretwin (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

July 2010 case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/northern_ireland/10486088.stm

seems links to an article describing the same case as a DIPLOCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And, indeed, when discussing the same case, the BBC explicitly uses the term "Diplock". Seems to contradict the assertion in the article that these courts are no longer in use. Anyone fancy investigating a bit further to find out what's going on? me_and 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From reading around and inferring, I think the Beeb is incorrectly using the term "Diplock" to mean "a trial heard without a jury due to the risk of jury intimidation". While a Diplock court is such a court, "Diplock" seems to me to specifically mean a trial held without jury for that reason under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. Since that's WP:SYN and likely to be contentious, it'll need good citations before being included in the article. me_and 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias?

What does the section on Kitson contribute? There is nothing to prove or suggest that the establishment of the courts was directly influenced by Kitson's work. I think I'm right in saying his contribution was mainly as advice and not as policy. The quotation does not directly relate to the creation of the Diplock courts, at all, and seems to be mainly an attempt to blacken their reputation by associating them, in any desperate way possible, with something cynical Kitson once said about the use of the law in counter-insurgency.

Certainly nothing in it proves that the real reason behind the courts' creation was counter-insurgency strategy, and not the integrity of legal due process as claimed. Moreover, even if the Diplocks were part of a covert strategy to defeat insurgents by subverting the law, how do we square this with the fact that the Republic had its own equivalent of Diplock? Were they too operating a Kitsonian co-in campaign? Doubtful. In fact, why no mention of the RoI's Special Criminal Courts in the main body of the article?

'Two years later Lord Gardiner’s review, of the removal of Trial by Jury, unconvincingly attempts to bolster Diplock’s findings as follows'

Who isn't convinced?

This is a fairly important subject matter. It deserves better than this drek.

Kitson section deleted.

--Oxford Menace (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not remove complete sections of any article without first getting consensus here at the talkpage. You have put forward you argument now please wait for other editors to put their case forward. Please be aware that this article is covered by the 1RR.

Of course. Sorry, my bad. New to this. B--Oxford Menace (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Kitson section is to stay, then we could as well include the following, which responds to its claims with equally implausible arguments but at least from the opposite point of view:

On the other hand, the establishment of the Diplock Courts can be seen as an early, and successful, example of PIRA's long-term aim of making 'the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule'. This was one of the central pillars of the 'Long War' strategy set out in the 1977 'Green Book' [see O'Brien The Long War p.23]: while the PIRA claimed its armed struggle sought to end British 'colonial' rule, its leadership realized that Catholic perception of British 'colonialism', and the subsequent disillusionment caused by this, was of great value in selling the Republican cause to the Catholic community. PIRA strategy therefore sought covertly to induce those conditions it claimed to be fighting against, in pursuit of its own ideological ends. In the case of the Diplock courts, it can be argued that Republican paramilitaries deliberately intimidated Northern Irish juries so as to prompt the British authorities to resort to an emergency, and less attractive, alternative; in this way British rule in Northern Ireland deligitimized itself further in the eyes of the Nationalist community. The corollary of this was the IRA's deliberate (some would say cynical) collusion in denying full legal rights to Northern Ireland's Catholics (as well as its Protestants), while at the same time styling themselves as champions and defenders of the Catholic community.

--Oxford Menace (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a (non-primary) source for the connection between Diplock courts and Kitson, I will be deleting this unsourced section.79.70.242.61 (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in Description

The first para of the description ends with a line start that Diplocks are still active with the most recent trial being in 2012 yet the last para stats they were phased out in 2007. anyone know which is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• That's a wording issue. Since 2007 use of Diplock courts has been limited to exceptional cases. Until then, pretty much all terrorism cases in NI were tried in a Diplock court. However, they were already in decline by the time the law was changed in 2007, because of the peace process. 92.1.212.198 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added details to the artcle recently. It seems the government marketed the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 as abolishing Dpilock courts, but the media still describe juryless courts as "Diplock courts". Since the term is a nickname and not legally defined, it's a moot point whether the 2007 changes were abolishing and adding something new as a replacement, or merely modifying the existing. One might go back to Diplock's report and see how closely the courts as constituted and operated correspond to his original proposals, and fix some maximum amount of divergence, but that would be WP:OR.

	Pre-2007	Post-2007
Type of offence	Only scheduled	Any indictable
Motive	Any	Terrorist/sectarian
Default (can be overridden by AG/DPP)	nonjury	jury
Conditions for AG/DPP to override	Simply "certifies that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence"	is "satified" that "there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if the trial were to be conducted with a jury"
Constitution and rules of court	Crown Court	Crown Court

jnestorius^(talk) 13:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)