Wikipedia Deep Dive

Diplock court

14 min read

The Courts Without Juries

Imagine being accused of a serious crime and learning that no jury of your peers would hear your case. Instead, a single judge would decide your fate. This wasn't some dystopian fiction or a practice from an authoritarian regime. It happened in Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, from 1973 until 2007—and in modified form, it continues today.

These were the Diplock courts, named after Lord Diplock, the law lord who recommended their creation. They represent one of the most controversial experiments in modern British legal history: the deliberate suspension of jury trials during a period of political violence.

The jury trial is often described as a cornerstone of common law justice. The right to be judged by twelve ordinary citizens rather than agents of the state stretches back to the Magna Carta of 1215. For over seven centuries, this principle stood largely unquestioned in Britain.

Then came the Troubles.

A Province at War with Itself

To understand why Britain took the extraordinary step of abolishing jury trials for certain offenses, you need to understand Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. The region was descending into chaos. Republican paramilitaries—primarily the Provisional Irish Republican Army, usually called the IRA—were waging an armed campaign to end British rule and unite the province with the Republic of Ireland. Loyalist paramilitaries, committed to maintaining union with Britain and Protestant dominance, responded with their own violence.

Bombings became commonplace. Assassinations were routine. Neighborhoods were controlled by armed groups. The British Army patrolled the streets.

In August 1971, the British government had introduced internment—imprisonment without trial—as a response to the escalating violence. This backfired spectacularly. The policy was applied almost exclusively against the Catholic community, radicalizing moderates and swelling IRA recruitment. It became an international embarrassment and a propaganda victory for republicans.

By late 1972, the government was looking for alternatives. They turned to Lord Diplock.

The Diplock Report

Kenneth Diplock was a senior law lord with a reputation for intellectual rigor. In December 1972, he submitted his report to Parliament, recommending the suspension of jury trials for terrorism-related offenses. His reasoning rested on two pillars.

First, he cited the danger of what lawyers call "perverse acquittals." This means juries acquitting defendants despite clear evidence of guilt—perhaps because jury members sympathized with the defendant's cause, or because they feared what might happen if they convicted. In a society as polarized as Northern Ireland, with its sharp religious and political divisions, Diplock argued that juries could not be trusted to deliver impartial verdicts.

Second, and more concrete, was intimidation.

Jurors had been threatened, of which we have had ample evidence.

This was the practical reality. In a small society where everyone knew everyone else, where paramilitary organizations had networks throughout communities, serving on a jury in a terrorism case could be dangerous. A juror who convicted a local IRA man might find his house firebombed. One who convicted a loyalist might be shot. The threat didn't need to be explicit. Everyone understood the risks.

The Dissent of Gerald Gardiner

Not everyone agreed with Diplock's conclusions. Lord Gardiner, another distinguished jurist, had submitted a minority report earlier that same year as part of a separate inquiry. His assessment was starkly different.

No evidence of [intimidation] or of perversity in juries.

Gardiner found no proof that juries were actually being intimidated or that they were delivering biased verdicts. This conflicting assessment would haunt the Diplock courts throughout their existence. Supporters pointed to Diplock's findings. Critics pointed to Gardiner's.

Two years after the courts were established, Gardiner conducted a follow-up review. His language was oddly contradictory. He wrote that he was "convinced" that jury verdicts would still be influenced by intimidation if jury trials were restored. Then, in the very next sentence, he admitted: "We have no evidence of this."

This tension—between the intuitive plausibility of intimidation in a violent society and the actual lack of documented evidence—would persist throughout the Diplock era.

How the Courts Worked

Despite their notorious reputation, Diplock courts were technically unremarkable in structure. They weren't special tribunals or military courts. They were ordinary criminal courts, just without the jury.

A single judge heard the evidence, made findings of fact, and delivered the verdict. The same judge then imposed the sentence. This is actually the norm in many legal systems around the world—including France, Germany, and Japan—but it represented a profound departure from British and Irish tradition.

The courts typically sat in Belfast, though the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland could direct specific cases to be heard elsewhere. From 1991, they operated as a specialized form of the Crown Court, the standard criminal court for serious offenses in the British system.

The list of "scheduled offenses"—crimes that had to be tried without a jury—was extensive. It included:

Murder and manslaughter
Arson
Riot
All offenses involving explosives
All offenses involving firearms
Various subversion-related crimes

There was an escape valve. The Attorney General for Northern Ireland could specify that a particular case should go before a jury. This was designed for cases where the crime, though fitting a scheduled category, clearly had nothing to do with political violence. A domestic murder, for instance, or a bank robbery motivated purely by greed rather than paramilitary fundraising.

But for the vast majority of serious violent crime in Northern Ireland during the Troubles—which usually had some connection, however tenuous, to the conflict—the Diplock courts were the venue.

Criminalisation: Treating Terrorists as Ordinary Criminals

The Diplock courts were part of a broader strategy that came to be known as "criminalisation." The British government made a deliberate choice to treat political violence as ordinary crime rather than as a form of warfare or political resistance.

This might seem like a technical distinction, but it had profound implications.

When the IRA bombed a pub or assassinated a police officer, the government's position was that these were simply murders—criminal acts committed by criminals, not acts of war committed by combatants. The perpetrators were not prisoners of war entitled to special status. They were common criminals to be processed through the criminal justice system.

This policy had both strategic and propaganda purposes. Strategically, it allowed the government to prosecute paramilitaries in civilian courts rather than interning them indefinitely or treating Northern Ireland as an active war zone. Rhetorically, it denied the IRA and other groups the legitimacy they claimed. They weren't soldiers in a liberation struggle. They were gangsters and murderers.

Republican prisoners rejected this framing completely. Their resistance to criminalisation would culminate in the 1981 hunger strikes, when ten prisoners starved themselves to death demanding recognition as political prisoners. Bobby Sands, the first to die, was elected to Parliament during his hunger strike.

The Diplock courts, then, were not merely a practical response to jury intimidation. They were a cornerstone of the criminalisation policy—a way of processing the conflict through criminal law rather than acknowledging it as a political or military contest.

The IRA's Perspective

Interestingly, the Diplock courts served the IRA's purposes in an unexpected way. By the late 1970s, the IRA's leadership had developed what they called the "Long War" strategy, articulated in a document known as the Green Book. One of their explicit goals was making "the Six Counties"—their term for Northern Ireland, which comprises six of Ulster's nine counties—"ungovernable except by colonial military rule."

The Diplock courts, with their suspension of jury trials and their association with emergency powers, provided evidence for republican claims that Northern Ireland was not a normal part of the United Kingdom but an occupied territory governed by exceptional measures. Every trial without a jury was, in republican propaganda, proof that Britain could not maintain normal democratic governance in Ireland.

This created a strange dynamic where both sides found the Diplock courts useful. The government used them to prosecute paramilitaries efficiently. The paramilitaries used their very existence as evidence of British oppression.

Conviction Rates: The Surprising Statistics

Critics of the Diplock courts often assumed they were conviction mills—that removing juries would lead to rubber-stamp guilty verdicts. The actual statistics tell a more complicated story.

Between 1984 and 1986, the conviction rate in Diplock courts was 51 percent. That's barely above a coin flip. More surprisingly, it was only marginally higher than the 49 percent conviction rate for jury trials in Northern Ireland during the same period, and essentially identical to the 50 percent rate in England and Wales.

What does this tell us? Possibly that judges were not significantly more inclined to convict than juries. Possibly that the evidence in many terrorism cases was weak—confessions obtained under duress, informants of questionable reliability, circumstantial connections to paramilitary organizations. Possibly that defense lawyers adapted their strategies effectively to the bench trial format.

Whatever the explanation, the raw numbers undercut the simplest critique of the Diplock system—that it was designed to make convictions easier.

The Peak and Decline

The Diplock courts were busiest in the mid-1980s, when they heard approximately 329 cases per year. This was the height of the Troubles in many ways, a period when the conflict seemed endless and violence was constant.

By the mid-1990s, everything was changing. Secret negotiations between the British government and the IRA, mediated in part by intermediaries in the Republic of Ireland, were moving toward a political settlement. The IRA declared a ceasefire in August 1994. Loyalist paramilitaries followed suit. Though the ceasefire broke down and violence resumed, a political process was underway.

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement—sometimes called the Belfast Agreement—brought the Troubles to an official end. This wasn't a victory for either side but a compromise. Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of its people wished, but with new power-sharing institutions that gave nationalists a guaranteed role in government. The border with the Republic of Ireland became nearly invisible. Prisoners from both sides were released.

The agreement included a British commitment to "security normalisation"—the removal of the emergency measures that had characterised governance in Northern Ireland for decades. This explicitly included abolition of the Diplock courts.

Sinn Féin, the political party associated with the IRA, had pressed for this during the negotiations. Their argument was straightforward: the denial of jury trials denied accused republicans the right to a fair trial. The government's acceptance of abolition was part of the broader package of normalisation that made the peace process possible.

By the mid-2000s, only about 60 cases per year were going through the Diplock system—down more than 80 percent from the peak. On August 1, 2005, the Northern Ireland Office announced that the courts would be phased out. In August 2006, they announced complete abolition effective July 2007.

But Not Quite Abolished

The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 ended the automatic use of non-jury trials for scheduled offenses. The category of "scheduled offenses" itself was abolished. But the act did not entirely eliminate jury-less trials in Northern Ireland.

Instead, it created a new system. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland can certify that a particular case should be tried without a jury, provided the offense was committed from a motive of "religious or political hostility" or on behalf of a proscribed terrorist organization "connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."

In other words, the Director—a prosecutorial official rather than a court—decides on a case-by-case basis whether jury trial is appropriate. The criteria are more restrictive than the old scheduled offense system, but non-jury trials remain available.

The 2007 act attempted to address the concerns that had originally justified the Diplock courts through other means. Juror anonymity was enhanced to reduce the risk of intimidation. Juror selection was made more randomized to prevent bias. The theory was that these measures might allow jury trials to work in cases where they would previously have been too dangerous.

Whether this has succeeded is difficult to assess. Non-jury trials still occur in Northern Ireland. They still involve terrorism-related offenses. The format is essentially unchanged from the Diplock era. Media coverage still refers to them as "Diplock courts" even though that term is technically obsolete.

The Broader Pattern

Northern Ireland was not entirely unique. The Republic of Ireland has its own non-jury court for terrorism cases—the Special Criminal Court, established in 1939 and used throughout the Troubles to try IRA suspects south of the border. It remains in operation today.

The United Kingdom as a whole has also moved toward allowing jury-less trials in certain circumstances. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, applicable throughout England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, permits trial without a jury where there is evidence of jury tampering—meaning where defendants or their associates have tried to influence or intimidate jurors. This is rarely used but represents a broader acceptance that the ideal of jury trial must sometimes yield to practical realities.

Some Notable Cases

The Diplock courts tried many of the most notorious figures of the Troubles. The Shankill Butchers, a loyalist gang responsible for a series of particularly brutal sectarian murders in the late 1970s, were convicted in Diplock proceedings. So was Sean Kelly, responsible for the Shankill Road bombing of 1993, which killed nine Protestant civilians and one of the bombers.

Danny Morrison, the Sinn Féin director of publicity famous for the phrase "the Armalite and the ballot box"—referring to the IRA's twin strategy of armed struggle and electoral politics—was tried and convicted in a Diplock court.

The courts also handled cases arising from incidents that became symbols of the conflict's brutality: the Milltown Cemetery attack, where a loyalist gunman killed three mourners at an IRA funeral, and the subsequent killing of two British soldiers who accidentally drove into the funeral procession of one of the Milltown victims.

In one case, the courts produced a controversial ruling on interrogation methods. R v McCormick, decided in 1978, saw Justice McGonigal rule that "slaps of the hand" during interrogation were permissible and did not constitute torture or "degrading and inhumane treatment." This ruling gave legal cover to physical coercion during questioning—a practice that would later be condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in other contexts.

Perhaps most surprisingly, the Diplock courts eventually heard cases with no connection to the Troubles at all. In 2005, Abbas Boutrab, described as a suspected al-Qaeda sympathizer, was convicted in a Diplock proceeding of possessing information useful for bombing an airliner. He received a six-year sentence. This was the first conviction of someone completely unconnected to the Northern Ireland conflict—a reminder that by the end of their existence, the Diplock courts had become a general tool for trying terrorism cases rather than a specific response to the Troubles.

The Legacy of Suspending Rights

The Diplock courts raise uncomfortable questions that extend far beyond Northern Ireland.

How far can a democratic society suspend its normal legal protections when facing a genuine security threat? The Troubles were not an imaginary crisis. Thousands of people died. Bombs exploded in cities across the United Kingdom. Assassinations were commonplace. The threat was real.

Yet the response—removing the right to jury trial for an entire category of offenses, for more than three decades—was extraordinary. It was supposed to be temporary. Emergency legislation is always supposed to be temporary. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act of 1973 was renewed, amended, and extended for over thirty years.

Did it work? That depends on what you measure. The security forces obtained convictions they might not have gotten before juries. Paramilitary leaders were imprisoned. But the conviction rate was barely higher than it would have been with juries. And the existence of the courts fed republican propaganda, providing evidence for claims of British oppression.

The Troubles ended not because of the Diplock courts or any other security measure, but because of political exhaustion on all sides and a negotiated settlement that gave everyone something while satisfying no one completely. Whether the courts helped reach that point or prolonged the journey is impossible to know.

What we do know is that emergency measures, once introduced, become normal. The Diplock system lasted from 1973 to 2007. An entire generation in Northern Ireland grew up knowing no other system. Lawyers built careers arguing before single judges. Defendants were tried without ever seeing a jury box.

And even after "abolition," the power to try cases without juries remains. The mechanism has changed. The category of scheduled offenses is gone. But the Director of Public Prosecutions can still certify cases for non-jury trial. The emergency hasn't quite ended.

Perhaps it never does.