Two years ago, a British NIO minister ordered Martin Corey’s imprisonment on the basis of “closed material”. No evidence has ever been produced to substantiate any charge against Martin.
On Monday 9th July, Mr Justice Treacy ruled that he should be released on unconditional bail. In a case centring on the secrecy of how Martin Corey was sent back to prison in 2010, the judge found that the North’s parole commissioners had breached his human rights by refusing to release him.
British NIO minister Owen Paterson then sought and was granted a stay on the release order by a second court, thereby ensuring Martin Corey’s continued detention. Remarkably, that stay was granted despite the absence from that hearing of Martin’s legal team.
A third court on Tuesday 10th July then decided to refer the case to a court of appeal hearing on Wednesday 11th July which has postponed any decision until September, thereby ensuring Martin’s continued internment for another two months at least.
Commenting on this latest twist in the Corey case, éirígí Rúnaí Ginearálta Breandán Mac Cionnaith said: “What has been witnessed over the past three days is nothing short of an unprecedented farce. It is a clear case of the British government literally arranging the bench in order to get a decision that it is happy with. Any sense of fairness, lack of prejudice or integrity which one is supposed to associate with any system of justice has been totally absent in the Martin Corey case.
“While the responsibility for Martin Corey’s continued internment lies directly with the British government, the Six County judicial system is not without blame either. That system is the same judicial system that upholds injustice through its operation of non-jury Diplock courts.
“That judiciary has this week proven itself to be a willing and integral tool in the implementation of British government policy. Judges in no less than three separate hearings have shown that they are equally culpable for Martin's ongoing detention.”
Mac Cionnaith also said, “Those constitutional nationalist political parties who endorsed and supported cosmetic changes to the justice system, and who provide a smokescreen cover for such blatant injustice, also need to examine their own positions.
“Those parties cannot be allowed to merely dismiss Martin Corey’s continued internment as being the result of ‘British interference in the due process’.
“The judicial system, which has now play its part in Martin Corey’s continued internment, is part of the structures which those parties endorsed and which they heralded as ‘a new beginning’. There can be no escape from that fact, however unpalatable that may be for some to admit.”