The Gazette 1967/71

hostile to those from the Bogside made their appearance on the scene, followed the police, and acted provoca tively in making offensive remarks and throwing stones in quantity. The police were between the two factions, and had to bear the brunt of the stone throwing from the two sides. 6. The plea of jutification can hardly be availed of by someone who incites others to riotious behaviour, as Miss Devlin's incitements were directed to encouraging others to do what was prima facie unlawful. This may well be, but no evidence was adduced that it was un lawful in the circumstances then existing. Furthermore it was held that the plea of self-defence could not be availed of, where what was sought to be -ustified was what was termed "an unjustifiable crime." It is highly doubtful whether the crime was so unjustifiable in the circumstances then prevailing when apparently the police did not care how much injury was caused to persons and property, and unquestionably used much more force than was justified. A satisfactory agreement could easily have reached beforehand •••:fU> the local Citizen's Defence Committee, if tact and forebearance had been shown. 7. The plea of self-defence based on n collective right of self-defence arising out of some collective necessity is rejected on the (round that the apoellant sought to eject what is euphemistically termed "a lawfully constituted constabularly acting in the proper execution of its functions." As such a nlea had never been tested by higher authority, it was a denial of justice not to grant as of right leave to appeal on this primary and fundamental ground. 8. Despite the preponderance of evidence to the effe"t that on previous occasions the police had, as stated by the Cameron Report, not endeavoured to quell riots ' t'ie Bogside. but had deliberately encouraged it, the finding that the magistrate was justified in rulincr as inadmissable and excluding evidence which the appellant sought to tender as to the behaviour of the police on previous occasions appears to be perverse. There was a fundamental essential reason to grant leave to apneal to test this. The circumstances were obviouslv such that the Court should have substituted a fine for the sentence of iniDrisonment. The ruthless and uncharitable finding that anyone—regardless of circumstances who encourages others to use petrol bombs for any rioting purpose deserves imprisonment would not be approved of bv the European Court of Human Rights, who would have examined the rieht of self-defence in the circumstances much more profoundly. Very few cases were cited throughout the 20 page judgment and many grounds were rejected without referring to precedent. It was not surprising that such a tactless verdict, openly encouraging the former, R.U.C. in all circumstances to regard their actions as lawful, the rejection of lawful grounds of apDeal, and the tactless manner in which Miss Devlin was subsequently arrested near Derry were main contributorv factors to the grave riots which in fact occurred in the Boprside following this arrest. Much of this situation could have been averted if a suspensory sentence had been substituted for imprisonment and if an Appeal to the House of Lords had been allowed on these fundamental and vital grounds. 64

circumstances was justified in acting as she did, was rejected in toto by the Court of Appeal on the following main grounds :—

. 1. The argument that the honesty and reasonableness of the aooellant's apprehensions robbed her of any guilty intent must fail once the nature of the common purpose of the rioting on that occasion is shown. Although this point does not previously seem to have been determined bv the House of Lords, leave to appeal was summarily refused. 2- In order to sustain thr doctrine of self-defence, it is suggested that there must be some special relation ship between the partv relying on jusification of what he did to help another—and that other person. It was held that Miss Devlin, even as a public representative had no special reason to be in the Bogside. Leave to p cal on this ground was also refused. 3. In view of the fact that, during a riot, it is the duty of a private citizen to help the police in suppressing the riot, there was no legal justification for Miss Devlin in encouraging the rioters, and no leave to anneal could be given on this ground. This distinctly odd finding to put it mildly, states the law in normal circumstances where the police are endeavouring to quell a riot, but there is ample evidence to show that in August 1969 and previously the police w~re ooenly encouraging riot and provoking disorders by attacking persons and property in the Bogside. This essential factor in the situation would seem to have been deliberately ignored by the Court, with an inevitably resultant erroneous finding. The Courts should have been sufficiently independent not to try to placate the former Royal Ulster Constabulary at all costs, particularly as the re forms introduced by Sir Arthur Young had not yet taken effect and the police force was undoubtedly sectarian. 4. It was apparently not lawful for Miss Devlin to oppose the police the wav she did. No cognizance was taken of Paragraph 179 of the Cameron Report, which states in relation to an earlier riot in Derrv, that "The conduct of the police in Derry was an immediate and contributing factor of the disorders which subsequently occurred." 5. Although the Court declined to take anv evidence on this matter, it was nevertheless held that Miss Devlin could not relv on the doctrine of self-defence, on the narrow ground that it was impossib'e to hold that the danger she anticipated was sufficiently specific or imminent to justify the actions she took as measures of self-defence. It is then sanctimoniously alleged that the sectarian police were in the throes of containing a riot, and that Miss Devlin's admittedly candid inter ventions against them at that stage were too aggressive and premature to rank as justifiable. Paragraph 177 of the Cameron Report epen though referring to pn earlier occasion hardly suggests that the police in Derry were endeavouring to contain a riot, when it states that "a number of policemen were quilty of misconduct which involved assault and battery, and malicious damage to property in the Bogside giving reasonable cause for apprehension for nersonal injury and the use of provocative sectarian slogans." This is reinforced bv the finding of sthe Court that (Protestant-) civilian