![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- 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)
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)
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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- 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)
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)
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 |