By Jamie Bryson
The long awaited ‘NAMA’ trial begins next week. It is a truly monstrous case, riddled with inconsistencies, falsehoods, fabrications and a desperate effort by the PPS to fit square pegs in round holes. There must be significant scrutiny on the PPS at the conclusion of these proceedings as to the amount of public money they have wasted on this case (likely over £1 million).
This case is not only novel, but wholly unprecedented.
It is a ‘non jury’ case, with the long established tradition of being judged by a jury of peers removed by the PPS using draconian powers (which they ought not to even have). The case will be heard by a judge sitting alone. This is fundamentally at variance with the principle of trial by jury which has persisted since the days of Magna Carta. That is no criticism of the judge who is scrupulously fair, independent and will try the case based solely on the evidence.
The reality that this case is judge alone allows me the freedom to speak a little more about the issue, than if it were a jury trial. Indeed, there has been significant media reporting of this case, with commentary and details provided which would not have been possible had this been a jury trial. In this article, I speak to broad and general matters of principle, and steer away from the ‘evidence’ (albeit, there is nothing prohibiting me discussing that if I so wish, but out of respect for the judge- not to be confused with any deference to the PPS- instead I focus on the issues of principle at stake).
In the history of Parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom (including devolved arrangements), never before has there been a case which seeks to criminalise speech in Parliamentary proceedings, much less one that seeks to criminalise the giving of good faith, truthful evidence on a matter of public importance.
Aside from the personalities involved, as Sam McBride wrote this week in his Belfast Telegraph weekly bulletin, this case involves matters of huge principle.
If the type of conduct alleged by the PPS (which in any event, is not true) is to be held to be ‘criminal’, then every political party in Northern Ireland is guilty: to give one obvious example, Michelle O’Neill and Paula Bradshaw, who discussed the marshalling of O’Neill’s evidence before her Executive committee appearance, would be guilty of a criminal offence.
The offence of Misconduct in public office is designed for ‘corrupt conduct’, for example paying public officials to corrupt themselves by handing over confidential information or breach their duty. It is unknown to the law to seek to criminalise the facilitation of truthful evidence on a matter of public importance.
In NI, the PPS in embarking on this case have sought to insert the criminal law into the political arena. They are seeking to criminalise political acts, which took place within the political sphere. That is a precedent which attacks the very foundation of free speech and democracy.
Whether people like it, or not, the highest judicial authority in NI has determined I am to be treated as a journalist, and it is accepted that the material in this case is journalistic material. Leave me aside for just a moment, the fundamental issue ought to be apparent: how long before they come for other journalists in Northern Ireland who have published public interest material which they received from, for example, a public official or the publication of which was facilitated by a public official?
We have been down this road before in England, with Operation Eleveden when the CPS- under none other than Keir Starmer- sought to prosecute dozens of journalists. These cases all collapsed in the end, but not before millions were spent and many journalists were hauled before the courts.
In those cases, it was alleged journalists had bribed public officials, using payments to corrupt the public officials into disclosing confidential information. Those prosecutions were (rightly) met with outrage given the interference with journalistic activity, but in terms of conduct, even they are a world away from what is alleged in this case.
There are no corrupt payments, no malicious motives, and not even a serious contention that the information I provided in evidence was anything other than truthful (indeed, two persons have been charged with fraud offences on the basis of it). It is instead a shameless effort to criminalise the publication of good faith public interest information which exposed political corruption.
And so many may find it amusing that I have been targeted in this way, but many journalists and politicians won’t find it so amusing if there is a precedent set and they are next in the PPS’ sights as they rampage around trying to regulate the political arena by targeting anyone deemed to publish information that they dislike. It wouldn’t be out of place in Putin’s Russia.
At the time, even some journalists who would be no fan of me used their platforms (some in more colorful language than others) to express serious concerns at the bad faith efforts to conceal my evidence from the public.
In respect for the court, there is nothing I can say about the substance of the ‘evidence’ in this case at this time. That is all for the trial process, and rightly so. That is where the allegations can be probed, using proper rules of evidence, and from my perspective exposed for the falsehoods they have always been.
But it is common knowledge, reported in the media, that there is no complainant as against me in this case. It is entirely being driven by the PPS, for whatever reason. There is not one of the committee members who actually sat on the Finance Committee who have raised any complaint, indeed two members who opposed me are in fact robust defence witnesses. If viewed that way, this monstrous case becomes even more outrageous.
And let me be very clear: there was no ‘agreement’ or working with the repugnant Sinn Fein. That was always a falsehood; a political smear. This case will provide an opportunity to debunk that myth once and for all. There was not one word of my evidence provided by Sinn Fein and/or anyone remotely connected to them, not a syllable. And as to my evidence: I stand over every single word of it without qualification. I have never once resiled from it, and much of the evidence has following my hearing before the Finance Committee been independently verified.
It is unfortunate that this monstrous ‘case’ is how NAMA is going to, in the first instance anyway, effectively be tried, with in the dock persons who exposed corruption rather than those who engaged in it.
There will be much more to say following the trial, when the evidence has been heard and I am therefore at liberty to more freely discuss a range of important issues.
But for now, I look forward to the trial process and defending myself against this unprecedented attack on free speech and political democracy.