Crown Court for Northern Ireland Decisions

(i) Each of you has pleaded guilty to membership, support, professing to belong to or aiding and abetting support of a proscribed terrorist organisation responsible for appalling criminal activities over a number of years.

(ii) However, my duty is to sentence you for the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty namely your association with that organisation during a period limited to approximately one month from 31 January to 3 March 2006 or, in some of your cases, solely to the latter date.

(iii) While much of it was undoubtedly couched in the standard paramilitary bombast reminiscent of the "fighting talk and military metaphors" referred to more than 30 years ago by Lowry LCJ, as he then was, in R v. Adams [1978] 5 NIJB, the speech drafted by Ihab Shoukri also included a direction that the struggle should henceforth move into the political arena and such a theme does seem to have formed the basis for this particular event.

(iv) Furthermore, the documentation recovered by the police strongly suggests that this acknowledgment of the faithful and their long service was conceived of as a private affair with admission to be gained by ticket and "security" being present outside.

(v) In my view the essentially private nature of the event together with the exhortation to move into the "political arena" and the absence of any arms or threats serves to distinguish this case from that of R v. Cunningham [Belfast Crown Court 20 May 2005] in which the accused also pleaded guilty to professing to belong to a proscribed organisation, namely, the Ulster Freedom Fighters. In addition, in the Cunningham case the accused had taken part in a video intended for public exposure that depicted a group of armed and masked men fronting colours and regalia purporting to hold a press conference in the course of which threats were issued against another organisation.

(vi) Finally, while the primary duty of the court is to pass sentence according to law, that exercise does not take place in a vacuum and it is important to have regard not only to the personal circumstances of the offender and any victim but also to the circumstances of the wider society. As Mr Adair QC on behalf of the prosecution quite properly concedes the prevalence or otherwise of a particular form of criminal behaviour may well influence the degree of emphasis to be given to the elements of retribution/deterrence in a sentence. In my view it would be unrealistic for the court to close its eyes to the significant changes that have taken place in this society since these offences were committed. It is indisputable that the restoration of local political institutions upon an agreed basis has coincided with the fundamental decline if not virtual disappearance of overt terrorist activity carried on by republican and loyalist paramilitaries. In the same context, recognition has to be given to the fact that individuals who previously supported or were members of terrorist groups or, indeed in some cases, who were convicted of terrorist offences, appear to have subsequently abandoned such behaviour and assumed positions of responsibility and influence in the general community. Of course that is not to say that members and/or former members of such groups do not continue to exercise a malign and sinister influence in some parts of the province and some organisations seem to have proved much more amenable to civilising influences than others.