Marian Price moved to Hydebank Wood

by sudannon - none Thu Jul 12, 2012 23:07

Nuala o Loan said there is a suggestion that Dolores Price drove Jean Mc Conville to her death
Can anyone verify this and in view of her admission on the boston tapes should this be admissable in a court of law

by Justin Morahan Mon Feb 27, 2012 01:06

]Sent: 05 January 2012 20:01

Dear Secretary of State Mr Owen Paterson

As a pacifist who has publicly opposed, written against and picketed against violence throughout "the troubles", I write to express my serious concern regarding the continuing and prolonged internment without trial of Ms Marian Price, also known by her married name of Marion McGlinchey.

I believe that there is no justification for the internment of Ms Price and that the reasons given by your office are spurious. You told the BBC that "The threat posed by her had significantly increased"

Ms Price remains uncharged in an all male prison, while her health deteriorates slowly but surely. Her re-association with prison after thirty years of freedom has for her revived horrific nightmares connected with the inhumane treatment visited on her (and others).

As you know she was subjected, while in prison on hunger strike, to the practice of force feeding for 167 days of her 200 day incarceration.

In 1980 she received the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and was freed on humanitarian grounds. Your recent decision to re-imprison her appears to fly in the face of this Royal pardon. As a result, I will be forwarding a copy of this e-mail to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

If you believe that Ms Price has committed a crime you should charge her. Otherwise she must be released or you and your Office are, in my opinion, open to a charge of inhuman treatment of a human being.

Allow me to reiterate that I am in no way associated with Ms Price, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, or any republican paramilitary group or party. I am totally opposed to violence from whatever quarter. I am making this request as a human rights activist in the interests of what I believe to be fair and right and just and humane.

My hope is that you will respond in like manner.
With best personal wishes
Justin Morahan
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REPLY FROM SOS PATERSON
[DATE: 9 jJanuary 2012]

Dear Mr Morahan,
Please see attached response in relation to your correspondence below.
Yours Sincerely,
Michelle
Secretary of State's Private Office

"NIO Northern Ireland Office
Stormont House Avenue
Stormont Estate
Belfast BT 4 3SG Telephone: 028 90527013

Dear Mr Morahan

Ms Marion Price

Thank you for your email to the Secretary of State of 5 January 2012 in which you express concern about the continued detention of Marian Price.

Marion Price received two concurrent terms of life imprisonment in November 1993 for two convictions of causing an explosion. She also received a determinate sentence of 20 years for conspiracy to cause an explosion. She was released on licence on 30 April 1980 in relation to the two life sentences. On 6 May 1980 she was awarded the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in respect of her determinate sentence only. Life sentenced prisoners remain on licence for life and are subject to recall at any time.

Marion Price's licence was revoked following a recommendation from the Parole Commissioners that it was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. It is regrettable that such action was necessary, but the Secretary of State's priority is the protection of the public. Those released on licence have a responsibility to act within the terms of their release, and where their actions show they pose a risk of harm to the public, the law provides that their licence be revoked."

[The above response was unsigned]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REPLY TO SOS PATERSON
[date 25 January 2012]

Re: Marion Price's continued unjust imprisonment without trial

Dear Mr Paterson

Thank you for your reply, e-mail dated 9 January 2012, to my email of 5 January 2012 with an attached scanned response which latter, though directed to me, was unsigned.

I refer to my previous e-mail and all of its contents re my concern as a human rights activist for Ms Marion Price's health, re her imprisonment without trial, re the Royal Prerogative of Mercy she received (in 1980) and also re my own lack of connection to any group with which Ms Price is or has been affiliated.

For purposes of keeping a record, I have typed and copied the unsigned response and am forwarding same to you with a pasted copy of your reply in a separate e-mail. I also propose to forward all relevant copies to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Three points in the response give cause for concern.

1. You state that on 6 May 1980, Ms Price was awarded the Royal Prerogative for Mercy "in respect of her determinate sentence only".

I understand however that this document is not available for inspection. Her lawyers would naturally need to be convinced that it was indeed in respect of that sentence only.

Why should it not be available when its date is known to you? Has this Royal document concerning the freedom of a living person been sabotaged, stolen or destroyed? If any of these has happened, it would represent a serious denial of justice to Ms Price, as her liberty depends on its contents.

Has the disappearance of this important Royal document been investigated and if so what has been the result of the investigation? If not, there remains a serious denial of Ms Price's rights to imprison her now without carrying out such an investigation.

2. You also say that her licence was revoked "following a recommendation from the Parole Commissioners that it was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm".

Again, such a recommendation would certainly not be made in the face of a Royal Prerogative to the contrary. The unavailability of this important document awarding the Royal Prerogative to Ms Price is most regrettable. Its absence is a material fact pointing to an injustice perpetrated on Ms Price.

If the Royal Prerogative is in respect of both of her convictions, then manifestly the Parole Commissioners would have erred and would have no power to advise you to incarcerate her without trial. Nor would you have power to act on such a recommendation. However, as the document is unavailable for inspection, these crucial factors cannot be determined, possibly in her favour.

Besides, what "serious harm" was she threatening on the public? If there were such, why is the public not being told, or Ms Price being charged with an offence?

The basis for the recommendation made by the Parole Commissioners is murky and far from clear.

3. You conclude that "Those released on licence have a responsibility to abide within the terms of their release, and where their actions show they pose a risk of harm to the public, the law provides that their licence be revoked."

There is no evidence adduced in a court of law, or made public by the Parole Commissioners, to suggest that Ms Price's actions posed a risk of harm to the public. From my understanding of events, when she appeared before the court, she was released on bail, but this release was thwarted by her immediate re-arrest.
No charge has been made following this re-arrest.

The whole picture does not add up to one reflecting the impartial exercise of clear, transparent or just law. It is a return to the horrific and unjust practice of internment without trial

Meanwhile, as I have already written, Ms Price's health deteriorates and is a cause of further concern. The terror her new sojourn in prison has brought to mind after the horrific torture she endured by being force fed for 167 days of her 200 day hunger strike can only be imagined. Re-imprisonment without trial in such circumstances must amount to cruel and inhumane treatment at the very least.

I urge you again on humanitarian grounds and on the grounds of justice and fair play either to bring charges against Ms Price immediately or release her forthwith.

With best personal wishes

Justin Morahan
Pacifist and Human Rights Activist
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Second Reply from SOS Paterson

[Date 13 February 2012]
Dear Mr Morahan,

Please see attached response in relation to your recent correspondence to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Yours Sincerely,
Michelle

Michelle Kane
Secretary of State's Private Office
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NIO Northern Ireland Office
Stormont House Avenue Stormont Estate
Belfast BT4 3SG
Tel 02890527013
Justin Morahan

Dear Mr Morahan

Ms Marion Price

Thank you for your e-mail to the Secretary of State of 22 January 2012. Please accept my apology for the omission of a signature on the response to your previous e mail.

You may already be aware that the Parole Commissioners issued a ruling on 30 January 2012 regarding the issue of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy relating to Ms McGlinchey. Following representations from lawyers acting for Secretary of State and Ms McGlinchey, the panel concluded that Ms McGlinchey was released on licence.

The Parole Commissioners will now convene a hearing on the issue of whether Ms McGlinchey is a risk to the public and if her licence should remain revoked. As part of this process, the Commissioners will consider the evidence put forward by the Secretary of State for the revocation of Ms McGlinchey's licence. Ms McGlinchey's lawyers will have the opportunity to make representations on her behalf.

Yours sincerely

[squiggle illegible]

on behalf of the Secretary of State