FOI- Bobby Storey, Barra McGrory conflict of interest

To whom it may concern,

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 could I request the following information:

(1) Did Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Barra McGrory visit Antrim PSNI station during the recent period of Gerry Adams detention?

(2) Given his previous role acting corporately for Sinn Fein/IRA during the ‘On The Run’ scheme, will the Director of Public Prosecutions- Mr Barra McGrory- be excusing himself from giving any advice in relation to the possible evidence threshold for prosecution against Mr Bobby Storey, a senior Sinn Fein & IRA member?

Kind Regards

Jamie Bryson

Advertisements

Letter to Mr Justice Stephens- Re: LAD, McKenzie friend & other issues- Galloway V Frazer

20/11/2014
FAO Mr Justice Stephens
Queen’s Bench division
Royal Courts of Justice
Chichester Street
Belfast

Dear Mr Justice Stephens

RE: Jamie Bryson
Galloway V Frazer

It is a matter of grave concern to me that senior counsel instructed by Mr George Galloway are continually making what is in my view false and erroneous allegations against me, both within their Skelton arguments and indeed in open court.

Counsel for Mr Galloway is, in my view, abusing the fact that they have rights of audience whilst I do not. This effectively allows them to make any allegation they want against me or to twist my words into a context that suits them and I am denied the right to respond or clarify my point.

I would ask that I be granted permission to address the court on any specific allegations made about me as I feel it is wholly unfair that counsel for Mr Galloway can repeatedly misrepresent comments made by me and make allegations against me without me having any recourse to address these falsehoods.

It is lawfully within the courts power to grant me permission to address the bench on this specific issue and given the entirety of today’s hearing pertains to me, I believe this falls within the category of exceptional circumstances whereby a McKenzie friend would be granted permission to address the court directly. I seek only permission to address the bench on allegations relating to myself. I believe granting me this limited right is clearly in the interests of justice.

If the court is not minded to permit me to address the bench on the specific points concerning myself, then may I respectfully request you to direct me in regards to how I can challenge the issues being raised pertaining to myself?

Firstly, I feel obliged to deal with the matter raised before you today. Counsel for the plaintiff has made allegations against me alleging a breach of confidentiality and contempt of court. I wish to address these most serious matters at the outset.

The ‘evidence’ before the court today has been taken from an online website called LAD (Loyalists against Democracy). LAD has been extremely excited, along with their fellow trolls, believing they have uncovered a ‘contempt of court’ by myself. I believe they are living in fantasy land. For the sake of clarity I will outline who LAD is and what they do.

LAD is a faceless online website (which also comprises social media accounts) which regularly spew sectarian hatred towards the Protestant community and who seek to stoke up political and sectarian tension. The account has harassed, abused and sought to intimidate me personally for a period of 24 months. This relentless campaign against me others has been raised with the PSNI and political representatives and is likely to be the subject of court proceedings to bring the perpetrators before the court in due course.
I should also make clear that rather dubious English plain clothes ‘PSNI’ officers have visited me at my home to politely warn me off exposing those behind LAD. I covertly recorded this conversation and have it stored away for later, separate, matters.

Counsel for Mr Galloway has come here today and presented before this court, as third party evidence, a screenshot of a post that was put up by the LAD site.

I submit that third party evidence, obtained from a faceless and extremely sectarian website, should not be accepted by the court. It is of grave concern to me that it appears that LAD are now setting the agenda for Mr Galloway’s legal team. Perhaps counsel for Mr Galloway could clarify why they have chosen to use screenshots obtained from this website. I feel that should Mr Galloway’s legal team wish to use this particular piece of ‘evidence’, which has clearly been screenshot and tampered with by LAD administrators, then they should produce the administrators of this website before this court under oath.

The argument put forward in open court by counsel for Mr Galloway sought to exclude me from the role of a Mckenzie friend.
I submit that the said argument, raised in open court, does not, in any way, meet any of the criteria for refusal as laid out in the Lord Chief Justice’s guidance notes.
Counsel for Mr Galloway alleged that I have an ‘interest’ in the case. I dispute their widening out of the term ‘interest’. I believe the desired legislative meaning of ‘interest’ relates to whether someone stands to personally gain or suffer loss by the outcome of the case. Perhaps a good example of an ‘interest’ would be a co-accused being a Mckenzie friend.

I believe the objections citing my ‘interest’ is a cynical manipulation of a somewhat grey area. In your own words my Lord you have said that “in law, context is everything”. I submit that right throughout the submissions on behalf of the plaintiff, quotes, comments and the desired meaning of words have been manipulated to suit the plaintiffs own agenda.

The Plaintiffs submissions make reference to me having an ‘interest’ in the case. They claim this ‘interest’ is political. This, in my respectful submission, is not only a play on words but it is the height of absurdity. If we were to follow this argument through to its logical conclusion then every single practicing solicitor would have to declare their political viewpoints prior to representing any client. It would mean that if a solicitor agreed with a particular ‘cause’ which was also identified with their client , then they would be unable to represent them. That would leave some solicitors, and legal firms, without any work!

It is illogical, impractical and quite frankly it is clutching at straws. On this point I submit that there are no grounds whatsoever to restrict me from acting as Mr Frazer’s McKenzie friend.

Further to this the plaintiff has made reference to the fact that I am before the magistrate’s court on other matters. This is quite true, and if the court feels it would be beneficial I am more than happy to disclose the comical and farcical nature of these matters in open court. I will do this upon the instruction of the court, not because counsel for Mr Galloway asks me to.

I must state however that it is completely irrelevant as there is no lawful precedent or reference in the guidance notes (which have no legal status) to excluding a person from acting as a McKenzie friend because of other- irrelevant – criminal convictions or pending cases. I believe the only time a separate criminal conviction would be relevant was if there was a conviction for a dishonesty offence or an offence directly related to the civil proceedings. None of this is applicable in this instance.

The only grounds for excluding a person in relation to ongoing proceedings are as follows:

“The McKenzie friend is subject to an order such as a civil proceedings order or a civil restraint order or has been declared to be a vexatious litigant; by a court in Northern Ireland or another part of the United Kingdom.”

In light of the above submissions I submit that there are no grounds for restricting me as a McKenzie friend due to ongoing criminal proceedings.

Counsel for Mr Galloway, and an online ‘campaign’ by faceless trolls such as ‘LAD’ have raised the issue which I addressed at the very beginning of this submission and alleged that I have breached confidentiality and am in contempt of court.

To support this allegation the plaintiff has submitted quotes and extracts that have been isolated from entire paragraphs, and presented them as standalone statements. This is a malicious manipulating of my words and I strongly object to this continued myth making by counsel for Mr Galloway.

Further to this, if the court does decide to take onboard the third party evidence, obtained from a faceless website with no visible accountability, then I am more than happy to explain the circumstances surrounding this issue.

I do not feel the issue counsel for Mr Galloway is attempting to raise constitutes a breach of confidentiality, especially as the issues related solely to me and not Mr Frazer or Mr Galloway.

I do feel that this issue, which may arise based upon whether the court chooses to accept the legitimacy of the third party evidence from a faceless trolling website, has many complex legal issues at play. I am of the belief that I am entitled to speak about issues pertaining to myself because this is an entirely different matter than discussing or publishing confidential information related to the case itself or any of the litigants.
As a reasonable man I believe it is entirely reasonable for me to believe that I have the right to publish whatever information I chose on issues that relate solely to myself and do not involve any other person. If this is not the case then I would respectfully request that the court makes this clear to me.

I do not believe that there is any rule which makes skeleton arguments confidential, private or privileged in any way. In essence skeleton arguments are merely an overview of what the litigant intends to argue in open court. The logical trajectory of claiming that skeleton arguments are private would effectively create a situation whereby they are ‘embargoed’ until they are read out in open court. I am unable to find any legislation that designates skeleton arguments privileged or embargoed and therefore I find it hard to see how I could in any way be in contempt of court.

However, if the court does find that I have breached confidentiality then this in itself still does not constitute automatic grounds to restrict me from acting as a McKenzie friend. The guidance notes provided by the Lord Chief Justice states that:

“The court should also consider whether a firm and unequivocal warning to the litigant and/or MF might suffice in the first instance.”

Counsel for Mr Galloway has also repeatedly claimed that I would use my public profile to influence public opinion, by expressing my personal views on this litigation. Once again My Lord I believe that this is entirely illogical and if it were to be followed through to its logical conclusion it would then restrict free speech and even journalistic coverage of open court proceedings. It seems ironic to me that Mr Galloway, who claims to be a champion of free speech, is going to such lengths to suppress this very right.

Whether I am sat at the back of the court, or at the front assisting Mr Frazer, there is nothing within the law which restricts me campaigning or expressing my own personal viewpoints on the case which is being heard in open court. The logical conclusion of the argument put forward by the plaintiff would be to ban every journalist from the courtroom, lest they express a view on the litigation that is not to Mr Galloway’s liking. This is not open and transparent justice and would in my view been in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.

I believe that if Mr Galloway wishes to restrict my right to comment or publish opinion pieces in relation to open court proceedings then he should instruct his legal team to initiate injunction proceedings against me. These most recent attempts are in my view the plaintiff seeking to gain an effective injunction against me via the back door.

I am assisting William Frazer for a number of reasons. Firstly because he is my friend and I believe he needs assistance, secondly because I believe in the cause of free speech and am supportive of William Frazer’s viewpoint and thirdly because I have spent considerable personal time building up a basic knowledge of criminal and civil law and therefore am able to assist William in elements of his case.

I have a keen interest in criminal and civil law and have spent considerable time writing opinion pieces on legal matters and the use of legislation. I have previously acted as a lay representative for Kare Kabs taxi company, (High Street, Bangor) in employment tribunals and have also represented individuals in disciplinary hearings etc within their workplace.

I would be grateful if you would consider my submission and the points I have raised. I have written this by my own hand. I have been somewhat annoyed to hear counsel for Mr Galloway claim that in previous hearings we have had some kind of outside legal assistance in writing affidavits etc, this is simply not true. I will quite happily swear under oath to the fact that I have received no outside help whatsoever in writing this submission to the court.
I hope the above goes someway to clarifying some of the issues that come before you today.

Yours faithfully

Jamie Bryson

Stormont- the shameful legacy of the Belfast Agreement

Last nights Spotlight comes as no surprise to me.
The peace process is founded upon murder, lies & appeasement and it is within that context that a blind eye is turned to all sorts of criminal and fraudulent activity- just to literally ‘keep the peace’.

The threat hanging in the air is that we might go back to conflict if we don’t continue appeasing the IRA. Who would take us back I ask?
Yes the IRA!
Make no mistake, they only use the peace process as a tactic at the minute because it suits their aims.
They have swapped the armalite and bomb for the greatest Trojan Horse they have ever been gifted- the Belfast Agreement!

Never lose sight of the fact that all that is happening to the Unionist community stems from the Belfast Agreement.

The equality case against Ashers conscience- let’s not forget it is OFMDFM (DUP/SF) who fund the equality commission and it was via the Belfast Agreement that the equality commission came into being.

Let’s not forget that the parades commission that wages a relentless war on the Protestant community came into being via the Belfast Agreement.
It is all well and good jumping up and down now- but let’s remember that those who support and implement the Belfast Agreement by logical extension implement the existence of the anti Protestant parades commission.

The fraudulent and criminal activity exposed by last nights Spotlight program merely highlights one of the truths about the peace process. It shows the extent of good behaviour payments handed out to those who stay on board the peace train.

If you behave and sing of the right hymn sheet then you will be rewarded with a get out of jail free card- a bit like the one the IRA OTR’s got- to allow you to skim and scam until your hearts content!

Let’s remember that it is not only Sinn Fein milking the great cash cow of the peace process- there are also many within Unionism selling their soul for money. They will carry the shame with them for eternity!

Gerry Adams strengthens hand of anti-agreement Unionism!

For quite some time now I have been describing the ‘equality’ agenda as one of many Trojan horses of Irish Republicanism.
I want to thank Gerry Adams for confirming this from his own mouth, saying that I don’t know whether to believe him or not, this is after all the man who masqueraded as IRA Chief of Staff-fooled even the Army Council- and then revealed he was never even in the IRA!

The equality agenda seeks to use one of the ‘buzz words’ that was thrown upon us by the greatest Irish Republican Trojan horse of all- the Belfast Agreement. It was of course this agreement- which the DUP implement in all it’s glory- that gave us the equality commission. The equality commission not only wages war on Unionists- their net is much wider- they also seek to promote the perverse left wing agenda by going after Christians and those with traditional conservative views. They want to break Christianity and promote homosexuality and a society where even the right to think is frowned upon.

Gerry Adams words come as no surprise to me. In fact I challenged Gerry Kelly about this ‘equality agenda’ on the Nolan show as far back as January 2013. I can see exactly what is going on and now Gerry Adams- from his own mouth- has confirmed the warnings that I -and others- have been shouting from the rooftops for years. Equality is nothing more than a weapon of war for Republicanism, do not be fooled.

I want to thank Gerry Adams- for once again he has confirmed the warnings and strengthened the hand of anti agreement Unionists. He has cut the legs from under those within the PUL community that would be minded to continue pandering to Sinn Fein/IRA.

Perhaps that is Sinn Fein’s real agenda. Maybe they see that they have ‘piece by peace’ extracted all the concessions they are going to get from the ‘process’ and therefore there is little advantage for them in continuing within the current framework. They will want a new framework for power sharing, with a new list of demands to be met. That’s why they are so desperate to get around the talks table.
They want the current arrangements to collapse and they know that the best way to do that is to continue strengthening the hand of anti-agreement Unionists. Either way I don’t particularly care- if Sinn Fein/IRA want to keep revealing their true self and confirming what a sham the peace process really is then I for one am more than happy. One way or another it is going to lead to a collapse of the power sharing arrangements.

I am proud to be an unrepentant Unionist bastard, and I suspect that many within the broad anti-agreement family are- like me- more than happy for Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein/IRA to continue to confirm what we have been saying for quite some time.

It is not just ‘equality’ that is an IRA Trojan horse- it is the entire power sharing ‘process’!

I agree with the DUP ‘noises’ but let’s not be fooled

I agree with the DUP on their stance on Irish language but let’s remember it is the DUP who prop up the Belfast Agreement that created a shameful parity between Britishness & Irishness..

I agree with the DUP on their views on the (no) parades commission but it is the DUP who prop up the Belfast Agreement that give birth to the Parades Commission

I agree with the DUP on their stance on Ashers bakery row but it is the DUP who prop up the Belfast Agreement that gave us the equality commission…

I agree with the DUP on their call for Barra McGrory’s resignation but it is the DUP that agreed to appoint John Larkin (another former G Adams solictor) as Attorney General who in turn under the justice act appointed Barra McGrory…

You might see from the points above that the DUP make all the right noises- but it is they that continue to prop up the very arrangements that are at the core of the betrayal of Ulster Protestants!

Do not be fooled by their sham fights. If they are that concerned then collapse the Assembly that is programmed to fail!

Courtroom comedy- Galloway v Frazer

This morning I was completely amazed by the application brought by Frank O’Donaghue QC on behalf of George Galloway.

He sought to have me removed as William Frazers legal advisor and cited blogs I had written which were critical of the justice system.
Quite what this has to do with representing someone in Court one will never know.

It appears that Mr O’Donaghue QC’s argument seemed to be that if you hold a particular political viewpoint that this bars you from assisting or working in any legal format. This of course is merely my interpretation of what was said in open court and I trust Mr O’Donaghue QC will quantify his objections and explain them in more detail at a later stage. I look forward to hearing them and in turn responding to them.

I feel that it would be a completely baseless and a somewhat preposterous objection to continue presenting the judge with copies of political blogs and documents I have written. My political viewpoint should in no way bar me from any legal activity. One must only look at the recent statements issued by Madden & Finucane solicitors to see that quite often solicitors articulate political viewpoints and publicly comment on cases in a political context.

It seems from my interpretation of today that Mr O’Donaghue feels that my political viewpoints and my recent criticism of the justice system make it inappropriate that I would assist William Frazer in an entirely separate legal matter. This in my view has no basis in law and is quite frankly a comical objection.

If objections such as this are to be permitted in Northern Ireland Courtrooms then I would myself waste no time in objecting to my own charging by the PPS due to the previous clients of the Director for Public Prosecutions. (He was of course employed by Sinn Fein in the matter of the On The Runs).

During the Court hearing there was also numerous references made to the fact that the plaintiff in this case felt that we had received legal help in drafting our papers. This in fact is not true- I myself wrote the affidavit on Williams behalf and I am happy go under oath and testify to this.

I am at a loss to understand the unbelievable desire of Mr O’Donaghue to have me removed from this case and can only speculate as to his reasons for pursuing this course of action are.

I trust however that Mr Justice Stephenson will discharge his duty, as he has done so extremely diligently so far, and dismiss this quite absurd objection.

Here we have two men- a terminally ill victim from South Armagh and me-a ordinary young loyalist from Donaghadee- who are quite willing and prepared to go up against the highly qualified and finest QC’s in the land- yet they will not even simply allow us to challenge them in the Courtroom. They want to decide who can or can’t represent Mr Frazer. What is it they fear from us? They have all the resources, all the qualifications and the best barristers that money could buy and yet they won’t go up against two ordinary secondary school educated loyalists? I take that as a compliment!

I also look forward to the continuation of my own circus case tomorrow. I have invested in a good book to pass the time during the hearing. I see no reason why I would be acknowledging the attempts of the PPS to bury my human rights and circumvent the normal process of justice and a fair trial.

Barra McGrory, Sinn Fein and the IRA!

Barra McGrory, Sinn Fein and the IRA….the hidden thread….

When you enter a Northern Ireland courtroom you enter a sham. A farcical system designed to protect the peace process and by extension the IRA terrorists who the Government perversely feel they must keep onside.
When you sit in the dock of the Court of the Queen (which of course bears no symbols of the Crown lest it offend the IRA) there are two things that are certain. You will have been charged by the PSNI (who are now accountable to a policing board which contains convicted IRA terrorists) and you will be being prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service (which is headed up by the former solicitor of choice for the IRA, Barra McGrory QC).

I want to explore Barra McGrory, his role as DPP and how he came to arrive at that rather convenient position. By extension I will also explore the inextricable links between the IRA and all their most prominent solicitors of choice through the years. This may provide uncomfortable or unpopular reading, it is however the truth and to understand the seriousness of Barra McGrory’s appointment as DPP, one must take a lesson from history.
I will also explore a vital question; was Barra McGrory instructed and paid by Sinn Fein for his work on the OTR scheme and if so why has he not excused himself from all prosecutorial decisions that involve any member of Sinn Fein or the IRA rather than just those who he represented as individuals?

At Hillsborough in 2010 there was a deal done. I am not talking about the deal that was signed by the DUP and presented to the electorate. I am talking about the deal that was done behind closed doors, the deal that has no paper trail but the legacy of which haunts Ulster Protestants to this very day.

Sinn Fein wanted the justice ministry. The DUP knew this would never fly with their own electorate so there would be no devolved powers of policing and justice until this political ‘inconvenience’ could be overcome.

Sinn Fein came up with a compromise. They would support a cross community candidate (Alliance) for the justice ministry only if they could have their choice for the Attorney General post. (OFMDFM ratify this post and given it is a joint ministry the DUP would have to be in agreement).
The DUP agreed to this and the man Sinn Fein wanted appointed was John Larkin. John Larkin had previously represented Gerry Adams but had also worked with the DUP during the talks. He was seen as an agreed candidate.

Under section 30 of the justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 the Attorney General appoints the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland). It was a silent understanding that Sinn Fein’s ‘prize’ for pulling back from other demands would be the installation of Barra McGrory as Director of Public Prosecutions. The DUP agreed they would not create any public controversy over this appointment.

This ‘plan’ had been some years in the making. As far back as 2007 there had been discussions between Sinn Fein and the NIO about the devolution of policing and justice. The DUP had on occasions been involved in these back room discussions.

In 2009 Barra McGrory was called to the Bar, two years after becoming the first ever solicitor in Northern Ireland to be awarded the rank of QC (Queen’s Counsel) in 2007. It was a strange move and it was widely suspected in legal circles that the ground was being laid for Barra McGrory to take up a senior prosecutorial role. Perhaps all this, and the timing of it, is just one big coincidence.

Here is a short summary timeline to help you make your own mind up.

• 2007-
Restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly
(Barra McGrory becomes first ever solicitor to be awarded the rank of QC.)

• 2009-
Discussions begin via back channels about the devolution of Policing and Justice
(Barra McGrory is called to the bar.)

• 2010-
Policing and Justice is devolved via the Hillsborough Agreement
(John Larkin- Gerry Adam’s former solicitor- becomes Attorney General. Appointed by OFMDFM)

• Under section 30 of the justice (Northern Ireland) Act , John Larkin in his role as Attorney General appoints Barra McGrory QC as Director of Public Prosecutions.

Barra McGrory was previously a solicitor in his father’s firm. His father was called PJ McGrory.
On 20th June 1972 the leadership of the IRA (a proscribed terrorist organisation) held a meeting with representatives of the British Government (Philip Woodfield a Civil Servant and Frank Steele who was an MI6 officer) at Balleyarnet, close to the border of Londonderry and Donegal.

The IRA showed how seriously they took the meeting by sending along their then Chief of Staff, D O’Connell and senior Belfast Brigade commander, Gerry Adams. It is in this context that the IRA also asked PJ McGrory to come along with them, albeit only briefly to verify the authenticity of the meeting. It is however quite reasonable to think, based upon the facts outlined above, that PJ McGrory was trusted by the IRA and perhaps even an advisor to that organisation. It must be remembered that the IRA were an illegal terrorist organisation sworn to destroy the British Sovereignty of Northern Ireland.

The IRA’s other solicitor of choice was a Mr Pat Finucane. It has been alleged that Pat Finucane was a member of the IRA Belfast Brigade staff. The IRA informer Sean O’Callaghan alleged that he was told of the lawyers rank in the organisation when he was introduced to him by Gerry Adams at a high level IRA meeting in 1980.

Pat Finucane’s brother John was an active IRA terrorist who was killed during a terrorist operation.
His brother Seamus is a senior IRA member in Belfast; he was jailed for 14 years after being arrested with Bobby Sands (the first IRA member to starve himself to death in the Maze prison in 1981) in 1976. He has also been in the news recently following the withdrawal of charges against him for his part in an internal IRA investigation which sought to cover up the rape of Maria Cahill and other sexual abuse allegedly carried out by another senior IRA man, Martin Morris. Seamus was engaged to Mairead Farrell (killed by the SAS in 1988. The families of the murdered terrorists were represented by PJ McGrory in a subsequent Court hearing and it was found that the SAS acted lawfully in killing the terrorists). His other brother Dermot was one of the 38 IRA terrorists who escaped from the Maze in 1983. It was during this incident that Gerry Kelly MLA shot a prison officer in the head. (Gerry Kelly has recently published a book glorifying the escape).
It is fair to say that the Finucane family are steeped in Irish Republican terrorism.

What is clear from all of the above is that the IRA chooses their lawyers carefully. In this context we move on to the current Director of Public Prosecutions (Barra McGrory).
Barra McGrory was the solicitor of choice for many members of the IRA Army Council, notably representing Gerry Adams (the former Chief of Staff of the IRA who was never even in the IRA.)
He was also the solicitor of choice for the Bloody Sunday families.
Most shocking of all however is that when the IRA leadership sat down to pick someone to corporately represent the terror organisation in a perverse scheme dealing with the issue of their ‘On The Runs’ , they chose Barra McGrory (who was appointed DPP by the man Sinn Fein jointly appointed as Attorney General).

Now let’s examine the reality of this. Sinn Fein claim that they are completely separate from the IRA, one is a ‘military’ organisation and one is a political party (apparently).However it was Sinn Fein that negotiated on behalf of the OTR’s and it was through Sinn Fein and their MLA Gerry Kelly (former IRA Chief of Staff and old Bailey bomber) that the letters were passed to the terrorists. This means that if Sinn Fein decided to undertake this task and submit names of their own accord then they are simply one and the same as the IRA. But this could not be the case because Sinn Fein has consistently said over the years that they cannot speak for the IRA.

During the negotiations leading up to the Belfast Agreement-and later decommissioning- the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams consistently said that Sinn Fein could not speak for or make decisions on behalf of the ‘Army’ (this was the term used by Republican activists to describe the IRA, a terrorist organisation involved in thousands of murders and also the sexual abuse of children within their own community).
This leaves only one explanation, the IRA instructed Sinn Fein to act on their behalf and in light of Gerry Adams’s consistent assertion that Sinn Fein cannot make decisions on behalf of the IRA, all decisions relating to the OTR scheme from the Republican end would have been made by the IRA and Sinn Fein would merely have been the messengers.
It therefore has been established -by following the logic of Sinn Fein’s own words- that the IRA would have made their own decisions in relation to their engagement in the OTR scheme.

What is the relevance of this you might ask? Well quite simple, it shows that the decision to instruct a solicitor to act on behalf of the IRA OTR’s- who are subservient to the IRA leadership as per the oath they took when joining the terror group- must have been made by the IRA itself. Given the previous examples of the republican credentials of the IRA’s other two notable solicitors of choice ( Pat Finucane and PJ McGrory) it is logical to believe that the man the IRA would chose to legally represent their interests on such a major issue would be someone trusted and someone with republican sympathies. They chose Barra McGrory.

The reality is quite simple, Barra McGrory is held in such high regard by the IRA leadership that he was the man chosen to represent their OTR terrorists. He was also the solicitor of choice for the former IRA Chief of Staff (who was never in the IRA, despite attending meetings with the British Government impersonating an IRA leader) Gerry Adams and a number of other Army Council members.

Barra McGrory was not asked by IRA members as individuals to represent them, he was instructed by Sinn Fein who in turn was being instructed by the IRA leadership. It is therefore true to say that Barra McGrory acted corporately on behalf of the IRA, as recently as 2009, only two years prior to his quite amazing rise to the lofty position of DPP.

It must be asked, if Barra McGrory was submitting names on behalf of Sinn Fein and therefore the IRA, who was paying the legal bill? Was Barra McGrory paid a retainer for his services?
It is an intriguing point. Perhaps Barra McGrory voluntarily undertook this task on behalf of Sinn Fein, but why would he do that? Or perhaps Sinn Fein paid him, which would then mean that he was corporately representing that party and by implication he is linked with every member of that party.

The above question is very important. It has huge legal ramifications. What is clear is that Barra McGrory was instructed to act on behalf of Sinn Fein then Sinn Fein as a party was a client of his. So how can Barra McGrory have any involvement in making any prosecutorial decisions in relation to any member of Sinn Fein?

He has previously ‘withdrawn’ himself from decisions relating to some of the IRA terrorists who were personally instructed by him, but he has not withdrawn himself from decisions relating to other members of Sinn Fein- even though he represented that particular party corporately.
This is just one of the many questions Barra McGrory needs to answer. Hopefully he will answer it more convincingly than his answers at the NI Select Affairs committee when he stated he only submitted names and that he played no other role, and then only weeks later he is named in the Hallett report as attending meetings with PSNI discussing how the scheme should operate.

Charges against Sinn Fein/IRA members have consistently been dropped by the PPS. Barra McGrory has not excused himself from all these decisions. He has ratified many of them.
He has also ratified charges brought against loyalists that are viewed by many as quite outrageous and without evidential basis. He has also quite conveniently approved many dubious charges against dissident republicans who are opposed to his former client, Sinn Fein.

Some of the charges brought against those from the republican community who are opposed to Sinn Fein are quite frankly outrageous. Whilst I am no fan of any kind of republican, I must say I have looked on in amazement at some of the charges brought without a shred of evidence against those who Sinn Fein would call dissidents. If one studies the charging decisions made by the PPS under Barra McGrory’s leadership , you could be forgiven for believing that he is now used by Sinn Fein to pursue a policy of criminalisation against their so called ‘dissidents’ as well as protecting IRA members who stay onside with Sinn Fein. It is hard to think of one decision Barra McGrory has made as DPP that has went against the IRA or Sinn Fein.

This article should give rise to many serious questions. It should also focus the attention of the public on to just what is going on in this Country. A blind man on a galloping horse would be able to see how justice has been passed into the hands of the IRA. It is the price of this false peace.

Could you imagine for one minute if Osama Bin Laden’s solicitor became US Attorney?
There would quite rightly be uproar yet here in Northern Ireland we are expected to accept the IRA’s former solicitor of choice and salute him as some kind of noble protector of justice?
How can the Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist community be expected to believe the PPS is independent and impartial?

In case you are fooled by the DUP’s occasional feather duster approach to challenging PPS decisions- don’t be- they have only a few months ago happily joined with Sinn Fein in re-appointing John Larkin as Attorney General.