Gareth Peirce is famed for her fierce commitment to her clients, meticulous attention to detail, tireless hard work and for not wanting the spotlight to fall on herself, rather her clients. The acclaimed human rights lawyer, whose career has spanned over 30 years, has appeared for the Birmingham Six, Judith Ward, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and Moazzam Begg, among others.
It has been said that when Gareth Peirce takes a case, both journalists’ and lawyers’ ears prick up. It’s little wonder. For more than 20 years, Peirce has represented many wrongly accused Irish men and women who stood trial in England with over 20 successful appeals, including the case of the Guildford Four, who were convicted of an IRA bomb attack in 1974. They were later freed by the Court of Appeal.
Her recent essays for the London Review of Books were written, she says, as an urgent SOS in relation to torture and complicity in Britain.
Speaking last week at the LRB bookshop in central London she spoke about how the moment is here to confront these issues, helped in part by the fact that there is a new Government in place under whose watch these did not happen.
Peirce’s essays call for an accounting of the British Government’s activities in the torture, rendition and internment without trial of those suspected of involvement in terrorism. She notes that while the Obama administration - under pressure from its anti-war base - has begun to release select evidence of the widespread use of torture in the War on Terror, Britain remains almost completely in the dark about the part its intelligence services and Government played. A judicial review into Britain’s role in torture and rendition since September 2001 was only announced in July by the coalition Government.
Peirce has been at the heart of some of the biggest cases heard in British courts. Since the 1970s she has represented many in their appeals against wrongful convictions made on the basis of disputed scientific evidence, misidentification and police malpractice.
She started life as a student at Cheltenham’s Ladies College, later studied at Oxford and then began working in the United States, where in the 1960’s she experienced the civil rights movement. On her return to Britain she completed a postgraduate at the London School of Economics and was recruited by the law firm run by Benedict Birnberg.
But despite her fame and fierce reputation – Peirce was played by actress Emma Thompson in the controversial film about the Guildford Four, In The Name Of The Father - she is in person a softly spoken woman, eyes gazing out serenely from beneath an unruly fringe.
Her first question to a captive audience at the LRB bookshop is to ask if she can be heard at the back of the room. “I know I have a quiet voice,” she says into the microphone with a smile, “which is useful only sometimes for getting into police stations when I’m not expected.”
But despite her unassuming demeanour, there is no forgetting that Gareth Peirce has been credited as having almost single-handedly transforming the criminal justice scene in Britain. And when she speaks, you listen.
Peirce finds parallels between the suffocating blanket of suspicion faced by the Irish during the Troubles and the Muslim community today – as well as some differences.
“The last several years have found us in the midst of more such catastrophes than we could ever, in our worst nightmares, have dreamed of,” she says. “We could never have envisaged that the history of the new century would encompass the destruction and distortion of fundamental Angle-American legal and political constitutional principals in place since the 17th century.”
She believes it was injustice itself, again and again, that created and fuelled the conflict in the North of Ireland.
“To map its 33 year trajectory is to discover that before Bloody Sunday, when British soldiers shot and killed 13 unarmed Catholic demonstrators who were marching to demand not in fact a united Ireland but equal rights in employment, education and housing, the IRA was a diminished organisation, unable to recruit,” she says.
“After Bloody Sunday, overnight volunteers from every part of Ireland and every background came forward. Throughout the years of bloody armed conflict, every lawless action on behalf of the British state provoked a similar reaction - internment, shoot to kill, the use of torture, brutally obtained false confessions and fabricated evidence. All of this was registered at the time by the community most affected, while the British public, in whose name these actions were taken remained ignorant – that the state was seen to be combating terrorism sufficed.”
Muslim families around the world are now registering the ill-treatment of their community in Britain and recognising the analogies with the experiences of the Irish, who suffered similar injustices in decades past.
And lawyer Peirce, who is now presenting her case for the innocence of Abdelbaset Ali al Magrahi - the man convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, says: “The right to a fair trial is in many ways difficult to articulate. If a defendant believes his or her prosecution is unjust, does he or she have any concepts to hand onto that are not entirely nebulous, unless they can prove, as those wrongly convicted in Birmingham or Guildford did, that their confessions had been brutally coerced? Or in the case of Judith Ward, where it was proved that the prosecution had withheld for 18 years evidence that disproved her claimed fantasies.”
Human rights legislation is a relatively new addition to British law. And Peirce asks if these rules can be changed or if there are legal concepts that protect a community under blanket suspicion.
During the Troubles, the Irish had some allies. Peirce says: “Much current reminiscence ignores vital factors - above all the weight of the Irish Diaspora and the far-sightedness of those who began and maintained contact, long before Blair was elected and claimed the ultimate prize. Throughout the 30 years of conflict, 40 million Americans of Irish descent formed an electoral statistic no US administration could afford to ignore.”
She believes no similar allies for the Muslim community are evident today, capable of pushing and pulling the British Government publicly or privately into seeing sense.
This summer the families of those killed in Bloody Sunday received the findings of the Saville Report.
“Saville’s conclusions are that one platoon of the Parachute Regiment and one commander bear responsibility and that the chain of command above them could not have foreseen the events of the day,” Peirce says. “There is no finding on the inquiry’s report either that foresight existed or could have prevented the bloody events of the day, which even at the time were immediately recognised by Irish men and women as the actions not of a few rogue soldiers but as actions authorities at the highest level.
“If so substantial an inquiry now could arrive at conclusions that allowed David Cameron to say to the House of Commons that the buck stops with foot soldiers, has the British state in fact owned up to the whole truth?,” she adds. “And how does the precedent set by the Saville Inquiry inform us so important as the second, announced only this summer, into torture? There is nothing in David Cameron’s announcement that guarantees that any of it will be heard in public.”
Peirce argues that the public has never been told what actually happened to lead to the conviction of al-Megrahi.
“Many of the families of those who died when Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988 have urged for almost as long as the Bloody Sunday families, that there be a searching inquiry into what happened,” she says. “And not one focused instead on the decision, a proper one, and entirely customary on Britain, to release a terminally ill person from prison.”
She adds: “Another dying man in a British prison years before, Giuseppe Conlon, wrongly convinced on the evidence of the same discredited scientists who provided the forensic case against al-Megrahi, was forced to wait for such a decision until the day of his death, when the home secretary, fearful of a political backlash, agreed too late to his release on humanitarian grounds. But the desire for vengeance remained in the air.”
Peirce is solid in her convictions. “There will always be a hunger by a bereaved family and a need by society in general,” she says finally, “ to have an adequate searching enquiry.”
24 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.DennisQ | Nov 10, 2010, 07:04 PM EST
For all your saloon talk, maloney, you haven't given Irish Central readers reason to believe your assertions about Muslims. They should accept what you say simply for the fact that you say it. That's very generous to yourself, don't you think?
Irish Central readers could take your statements at face value if they knew you by reputation. But this is an anonymous forum! The only way we'd know to believe you is if you support your arguments with facts from credible sources. In this regard you are not being singled out.
maloney | Nov 10, 2010, 05:06 PM EST
Telling lies is your realm of insanity dennis. Once again, it's your stupid arse I have no respect for dennis. I can't think of another I feel the same way about on IC. You don't know your arse from apple butter about anything, let alone me. You don't know the meaning of playing it straight, nor being straight for that matter. Flail on idiot.
DennisQ | Nov 10, 2010, 01:45 AM EST
We may conclude that the well-informed maloney bases his opinions on his extensive travels. He knows whereof he speaks when he asserts " . . . the muslim doesn't want to become a part of, they want to transform. They want to impose sharia & all of their way of life on whomever the emigrate to. They have no respect for your ways or mine. It's their way or die.
Frankly, it sounds like saloon talk to me. In idle conversation, nybody can get up and make the most extreme statements about people they've never even met. That's why, when you publish something likely to be controversial, you're usually prepared to support your own statements. However, maloney shares his secrets only with people whom he "respects" - a group that does not include the readers of Irish Central.
It's still worth a try to ask somebody to document their reasons for their opinions. Who knows? From time to time, you may encounter somebody who genuinely plays it straight.
maloney | Nov 09, 2010, 06:37 PM EST
dennis...if I had any respect for you I would respond to your slander. But I don't, so I won't. You are wrong on all counts, again, as usual. I will offer that I have traveled more in one year, more than once, than you have in your lifetime.
DennisQ | Nov 09, 2010, 05:39 PM EST
Where do you get the stuff you write, maloney? I'll bet you don't know a single Muslim person, and you haven't traveled to any Muslim countries, and you've even looked at a copy of the Koran.
Your opinions aren't based on anything real. You put more care into whether or not you'll carry an umbrella in the morning than your enmity towards people of the Muslim faith. Tell the truth. You get everything you know about Muslims from tabloid newspapers or tabloid television, don't you?
maloney | Nov 09, 2010, 02:05 PM EST
sirpeter..I agree with all you said. Also America brings lots of problems on themselves. Greed for power, land, money & oil tend to be behind the pretext of helping, as in the case of Kuwait. With that said, the muslim doesn't want to become a part of, they want to transform. They want to impose sharia & all of their way of life on whomever the emigrate to. They have no respect for your ways or mine. It's their way or die. I got a problem with that. Wrong thinking as it may be, I find myself not overly concerned with doing things that upset them. I have no respect for someone who has no respect for me.
sirpeter | Nov 09, 2010, 07:03 AM EST
@Strongbow..Wrong..all Wrong...Terrible INTERNETTING.
sirpeter | Nov 09, 2010, 06:52 AM EST
Good post DennisQ...maloney,I am not been disrespectful to what you think.But like any problem you HAVE to go deeper and get to the root cause,it's as simple as that.Muslims children are not born with aggression and a wish to kill.If you agree with that one point,the only conclusion you can draw is that aggression and hate is a learned behavior.I hate using the word terrorist,because it is a loaded word and implied that certain kinds of resistance is not exceptable.When a people have limited options by way of resistance,they are forced to use covert actions.If you understand this point,the question to ask is why.The things all resistance groups have in common is that they have the support of large sections of the community.If that community feels threatened or they are badly treated and the Muslim world is a very large one,they are going to try to stop you.If YOU feel that Muslims want to kill you in your country and that you are innocent,you should complain to your leaders, elected by YOU and ask them are they doing anything that might upset these Muslims in such a way that they want to rip your throat out.If your government IS interfering with Muslim Countries,then the only conclusion is that they are interfering in a bad way.If you understand all that...at least then when you are innocently going about your business shopping with your kids and all of a sudden there is a large explosion and your kids intestines and yours are spread out over 50 yards,you will see there is a reason for it and you will die with a little more understanding.
DennisQ | Nov 09, 2010, 04:44 AM EST
If you want to reduce terrorism, you have to modify policies which provoke terrorism as a response. That shouldn't be the revelation it apparently is. However, as Peirce herself noted, IRA recruiting efforts received a great boost from the events of Bloody Sunday - to the surprise of the British public!
Research out of the University of Chicago shows that certain policies promote suicide terrorism as certainly as night follows day. Professor Robert Pape's book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism shows that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation. Unfortunately, both the American and the British governments have adopted policies that maximize the likelihood of local terrorism, possibly because at some level they seek to justify deprivation of civil liberties.
Eventually there may be an incident so brutal, tragic and unnecessary that even right wingers may seek more humane policies. In the meantime, however, it's easily seen which groups are personally affected by preventable tragedy and which aren't. George Bush, at no risk to himself, famously provoked Middle East terrorists, saying Bring it on.
hancock | Nov 09, 2010, 12:38 AM EST
I guess Al qeda will go into govt then?
Strongbow | Nov 08, 2010, 08:35 PM EST
if the US is as successful against terrorism as the british have been against irish terrorists i will feel a whole lot safer going about my business in nyc. the british are to be commended in their counter-terrorist measures over the years. terrorism is notoriously difficult to contain but the british drove the provos to a standstill and proved the limits of armed insurrection.
maloney | Nov 08, 2010, 06:28 PM EST
sirpeter, I respect your opinion but a muslim needs no reason to hate or kill. They are a backward, barbaric people. I have seen & heard more than one imam say there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. I choose to take them at their word. The things you say, if you do to them, they will do to you, they do every day for no reason. If you let them into your country as America & Ireland have, trouble & death & overthrow of govt. is their agenda. They will wait generations if needed to achieve their goals.
GaelicPrince | Nov 08, 2010, 03:31 PM EST
Does she have a phone number? I would try and find out if I'm entitled to any human rights of any kind! The problem is.....any women that know's I dislike dutch because I don't believe them being in Desendant of Ireland or what they do to Irish women and children. Useully get killed by the dutch. Would I be putting her life at rish if I contacted her?
PaddyCork | Nov 08, 2010, 12:35 PM EST
She stretches it a fair bit to make the comparison with the Irish and Muslim immigrants. Nothin like pushin the knee jerk button.
sirpeter | Nov 07, 2010, 08:29 PM EST
Better to let a thousands Muslim bombers go,then to convict and imprison or kill one innocent Muslim.You kill or imprison one innocent Muslim,and you have just given another million Muslims a reason to hate..and they will come and get you,they will blow you up and kill your children and bomb your country,And no government will ever stop them, no Army,no Cops,no CIA,no FBI,Nobody can ever..ever..ever stop them.Where you have injustice you will get resistance.You kill their kids and they will kill yours.If your government has killed innocent people and made you an innocent target.Tough sh*t. I think what she is doing and has done is great,she fights for justice and there was nothing controversial about the Guildford Four as stated in that article.Four innocent men convicted for a crime they did not commit,they got justice because of her,and justice has lead to peace in Northern Ireland.
bronxjames | Nov 07, 2010, 04:36 PM EST
WILL YOU BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP. IF YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THEM SOB'S GO MOVE TO IRAN OR IRAQ OR AFGHANASTAN OR YEMEN OR ANYWHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. GOD YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME.
Pittsburghkid | Nov 07, 2010, 01:51 PM EST
On both sides of my family, which are Irish. Considered themselvies Americans. Being Irish was not discussed. One day my father ask his mother why he did not wear green on St Patricks Day. She said "you face is enough." When I see these muslims dressed up like Lawrence of Arabia, I think this person is looking for trouble. In American, we have hate crimes. Whites are the only people convicted of hate crimes. (Also in American there is no classification called Irish-American, we are all White.) The Muslims are starting settlements in America, which is very interesting. According to American Civil Rights Laws, Whites must intergrate, but Blacks and Muslims do not have to intergrate. I do not care about any of this Progressive nonsense.
jakeleg | Nov 07, 2010, 01:22 PM EST
The Muslims are changing our way of life,and we are wrong to let them.They are not to be trusted ,just like the ones in prison and let out just to again become terrorists.They known how forgiving we are,but,they are cold hearted.Cut off hands,kill there wife for minor things.Are leaders ought to think of the future of this country if we keep letting them dictate what they want,and the bleeding heart liberals say; sure sure......
Conchubar | Nov 07, 2010, 12:19 PM EST
I have very little problem with releasing a "Teminally ill person from prison." However, al-Megrahi doesn't appear to have qualified as "terminally ill" at the time of his release. I certainly don't want to see any person jailed or convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and the evidence that DOES convict them should be reliable and presented by creditable witnesses. I find it difficult not to desire increased vigilence of the "Religion of Peace" though.
FastEddy | Nov 07, 2010, 11:16 AM EST
No
oldboreen | Nov 07, 2010, 11:05 AM EST
If Ireland had an honours system, and it's high time one was introduced, Gareth Peirce would more than qualify as an 'honoury non-Irish national' recipient.
jamthecat | Nov 07, 2010, 10:32 AM EST
Pounder and Bonitaslevin deliberately ignore the real point behind this article -- that innocent Muslims have been convicted of crimes thanks to government malfeasance. It happened to the Irish in England and Northern Ireland. It happened to the Indians in India. It's happening now in both the US and UK. And she wants it made public. That's it. There is no comparison to the centuries of brutality against the Irish by the English, whatsoever, and to say there is means you do not want to face the reality of today's world -- that the governments of the US and UK still torture people into confessions, like this was the Inquisition, and use those confessions to send people to jail for years...not because they seek justice but because it's politically expedient and makes it seem like they're doing their jobs. That the real perpetrators are still free to do more of their evil is beside the point to them.
pounder | Nov 07, 2010, 09:44 AM EST
Don't compare the Irish and what they suffered with what these Muslims are 'enduring' now!
Bonitaslevin | Nov 07, 2010, 09:20 AM EST
Well thre is a difference here. when the Irish came to the US. they did not expect the country they went to, to change for them. The Muslims want us to change. We can't even say the Lords prayer in school or anyhwere as they "may not like it" If they want their own religion, fine, but don't try to change this country to suit them.WE are losing a lot of our ways and religion becaue it isn't fair to them. The Irish did not do this.