Fortnight Publications Ltd.

What the People Think about SupergrassesAuthor(s): Committee on the Administration of JusticeSource: Fortnight, No. 209 (Nov., 1984), p. 13Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25547582 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 11:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:01:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^H THE

WHAT THE PEOPLE THINK

ABOUT SUPERGRASSES A recent opinion poll organised in Belfast by the COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE showed a wide divergence of opinion between the two communities on the merits of the supergrass system, but a substantial majority felt it was wrong to convict on the evidence of a supergrass alone.

THE COMMITTEE on the Administration of Justice, a broad-based group formed in 1980 to

monitor the administration of justice in North ern Ireland, has long been concerned about the effects of the supergrass strategy on public con

fidence in the judicial system. Last year it held a

public debate on the issue and in the light of that formulated its own policy; that no convict ion on the evidence of a supergrass should be

allowed without strong independent evidence of guilt; that supergrasses should not be given

immunity from prosecution or any other in

ducement to cooperation other than a lesser

sentence; and that no one should be held in

custody for long periods on the uncorroborated

evidence of a supergrass.

These demands, like those of other commun

ity pressure groups, have been studiously ig nored by the authorities. The official line seems to be that complaints about the supergrass sys tem - indeed any complaints about the security system or the administration of justice

- come

from unrepresentative and 'suspect' sources, and that the mass of the population on both sides has full confidence in the judicial system.

Early this year the CAJ decided to put this to

the test in a representative opinion^oll on the

whole supergrass system. Interviews were car

ried out in June and July this year in eight wards in Belfast, carefully selected to give a reason

ably accurate picture of atittudes in all types of

area, from middle class to working class and from wholly Protestant and wholly Catholic to

mixed areas. The eight wards polled were as

follows: Belmont, Ballymacarrett and Ormeau in East Belfast, Windsor and University in

South Belfast, St James and Woodvale in West

Belfast, and Cliftonville in North Belfast.

A quota sample of 328 persons, allocated to

give a representative response in terms of sex,

age and religion, was devised. Some of thsoe

approached refused to cooperate, but a total

sample of 233 was polled, of whom 131 declared themselves to be Protestants, 70 to be Catholics and 32 refused to disclose their religion. This

was in line with the 1981 census figures for all three categories. Due to the pattern of refusals, there was a slightly higher proportion of male than female responses (see Table 1).

The major conclusion from the poll is that there is a very wide divergence of opinion on the supergrass system. All respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the system on a five-point scale. As shown in

Table 2, about two in five (38%) strongly ap proved or approved of the system, one in five

(21%) reluctantly approved and the remaining two in five (40%) disapproved or strongly dis

approved. As might have been expected, the

approvers were heavily concentrated in Prot estant areas: 32% of declared Protestants

strongly approved and 24% approved. Con

versely, the disapprovers were heavily concen trated in Catholic areas: of declared Catholics, 33% disapproved and 39% strongly disap proved. But there was a substantial middle

ground in both communities: about one fifth in each category said they reluctantly approved of the system.

Those who reluctantly approved tended to

take the view that the use of supergrasses could be justified only if there was independent cor

roboration of their evidence. All respondents were asked 'Do you think it right that suspects can be convicted on the evidence of a super grass alone?' Overall two thirds of the sample

(65%) said they did not think it right and one third (33%) said they did. Almost all declared

Catholics (90%) thought it not right, and ex

actly half (50%) of the declared Protestants. There was a similar response to the related

question 'Do you think it right that suspects can be convicted on the evidence of a supergrass if it can be supported by other independent evid ence against the suspect?' Overall three quart ers (77%) of the sample felt it would be right, and only one fifth (20%) felt it would not be

right. This included a high proportion of those who said they were Catholic or refused to give their religion.

The respondents were also asked to give their views on how supergrasses should be dealt

with. Most ruled out complete immunity from

prosecution. Apart from that, no very clear

picture emerged. About half the sample (44%),

mainly those who disapproved of the system, said that no special treatment or reward should be granted. An almost equal proportion (41%)

thought that a lesser sentence should be given, and rather fewer (23%) also said that police protection should be granted.

The sample was finally asked if they 'felt it

right that suspects can be charged and held for

long periods in custody before trial on the evi dence of a supergrass alone'. A rather lower

majority (56%) said they did not think this right.

The CAJ concluded on the basis of this small

survey that its own and other groups' demands for an immediate reform of the supergrass sys tem are fully justified. The results show clearly that there is widespread concern at the justice of the supergrass system, and that a substantial

majority drawn from both communities thinks that corroboration of supergrass evidence is es

sential. No one should be suprised at these

findings. The policy of prosecuting on the un

corroborated evidence of a supergrass was ab andoned in Britain some years ago, when it was

found that juries were unwilling to convict on

uncorroborated evidence. The Director of Pub lic Prosecutions there eventually issued a dir

ection that no prosecution should even be star

ted on uncorroborated supergrass evidence. It is still open for the Court of Appeal in

Northern Ireland to restore some of the lost

public confidence in the judicial system by de

ciding in the appeals in the various supergrass trials held here that all uncorroborated convict ions should be quashed. If the judges fail to do

this, then legislation is urgently needed to make corroboration a legal requirement in any trial before a Diplock court without a jury. Reform of the law or administrative practice is also needed to avoid long remands in custody in such cases, as has been recommended by the

Baker Review of the Emergency Provisions Act. But the most important message is that the authorities are gravely mistaken if they think that critics of present judicial and security pol icies are an unrepresentative minority.

Further details about the Commute on the

Administration of Justice and the survey may be obtained from the Secretary, do 224 Lisburn

Road, Belfast 9.

TABLE 1: SAMPLE MAKE-UP ? COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES Wards:

Ballymacarrett.20 Male.132 Belmont.33 Female.101

Cliftonville.40 St James (Falls)..:.30 Protestant.131

Ormeau.24 Cathoiic.70 University.21 Religion undisclosed.32

Woodvale.25

TABLE 2: GENERAL ATTITUDES TO THE SUPERGRASS SYSTEM AS IT IS BEING USED HERE

Protestant Catholic Undisclosed Total

Strongly approved 42 32% 1 1% 7 22% 50 21% Approved 31 24% 4 6% 4 12% 39 17% Reluctantly approved 29 22% 14 20% 7 22% 50 21% Disapproved 11 8% 23 33% 3 9% 37 16% Strongly disapproved 17 13% 27 39% 11 35% 55 24% No answer 11% 1 1% ? ? 2 1%

131 100% 70 100% 32 100% 233 100%

TABLE 3: DO YOU THINK IT RIGHT THAT SUSPECTS CAN BE CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE OF A SUPERGRASS ALONE?

Protestant Catholic Undisclosed Total Not right 66 50% 63 90% 23 72% 152 65% Right 63 47% 6 9% 9 28% 78 33% No answer 2 2% 1 1% ? ? 3 1%

131 100% 70 100% 32 100% 233 100%

Fortnight November 1984 13

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:01:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions