Izzit 'cos I iz from Limerick ?

Can it really be true that the Department of Justice (Minister: Michael McDowell S.C.) regards Chief Justice John Murray S.C. - distinguished jurist (ex ECJ), former Attorney-General and native of Limerick - as a security risk ?

From Michael Clifford's column in yesterday's Sunday Tribune:

On 12 December last, the criminal Martin Hyland and the innocent young plumber Anthony Campbell were murdered. One of Hyland's gang is suspected of the killings.

Two days later, a headline blazed the news that 23 out of 24 of Hyland's gang facing charges were out on bail. The story and all the accompanying comment implied that this was despite strenuous garda objections. It looked like the courts had completely disregarded the warnings of gardai­ that these dangerous criminals would reoffend while back on the streets..

There was outcry in the media and from the public...

McDowell jumped on the bandwagon.

On 15 December, he hit out at judges' interpretation of the bail laws. "The simple fact is, if 23 out of 24 people are admitted to bail despite garda opposition in very serious cases, something is going wrong." As it turned out, this statement was either wildly inaccurate or deliberately misleading, and designed to deflect attention from his own responsibilities..

On Christmas Eve, it emerged that in at least two of the 24 cases the gardai­ had no objection to bail..

Legal sources believe the figure to be much higher, possibly in the majority. (The actual figure is known only to the gardai­, which has leaked selective details to its best buddies in the media. ) A number of the individuals are charged with minor offences, such as breaches of the public order act.

Only some of the 24 are up on serious charges. Only some of them are potentially dangerous. Patently, the gardai­ don't believe that a number of those suspects are likely to commit serious crime while on bail....

Meanwhile, chief justice John Murray was perturbed by the headlines. He requested details of the cases, presumably to determine whether his courts were actually malfunctioning, or whether they were just portrayed as such by those in pursuit of other agendas.

Murray hasn't been given the details. McDowell's department says there are security concerns around that information. The chief justice is regarded as a security risk?.

Or would he merely be a risk to the security of McDowell's spin if he were in full possession of the facts?.

This is what passes for a coherent approach to policy on crime from the minister..

Follow the headline, and if the headline is bogus, what the hell, it's only crime. Trash the courts, and if the basis for that trashing is bogus, what the hell, separation of powers is only a fundamental safeguard in a democracy. All these things are mere vehicles for a great man en route to fulfilling his destiny.