Paramilitary Imagery and Breach of Peace: Insights from HCJAC 20

Introduction

The case Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow v Ward; Macaulay; Walker ([2021] HCJAC 20) addresses critical issues surrounding the use of paramilitary imagery in public spaces and its implications for public order. The appellants, Daniel Ward, Martin Macaulay, and Ryan Walker, were charged with conducting themselves in a disorderly manner by displaying images associated with a proscribed terrorist organization, specifically the Irish Republican Army (IRA), during a high-profile football match at Celtic Park. This commentary delves into the judgment delivered by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary, examining the court’s reasoning, the precedents cited, and the broader legal implications of the decision.

Summary of the Judgment

On 19 July 2017, during a contentious football match between Celtic FC and Linfield FC at Celtic Park, the respondents attended adorned in white T-shirts featuring an image resembling a paramilitary figure against the backdrop of the Irish flag. The Crown charged them with breach of the peace for displaying images linked to the IRA. Initially, the Glasgow Sheriff Court convicted all three respondents, imposing fines. However, upon appeal, the Sheriff Appeal Court quashed these convictions, citing insufficient corroborated evidence that the imagery explicitly represented the IRA.

The Crown subsequently appealed this decision. The High Court of Justiciary, in its judgment, reversed the Sheriff Appeal Court's decision, restoring the convictions. The court ruled that the sheriff had adequately assessed the imagery and was entitled to its interpretation that the figures depicted were affiliated with an Irish terrorist organization, even without explicit corroboration. The judgment emphasized the role of judicial knowledge in interpreting commonly recognized symbols and the sufficiency of evidence presented.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influenced its decision:

Campbell v Vannet (1998) SCCR 207: This case established that narrative references to terrorist organizations do not necessarily require corroborative evidence. The court relies on the sheriff’s judicial knowledge to interpret uncontroversial facts.
Davie v Edinburgh Corporation (1953 SC 34): This precedent underscored that certain evidence, such as paramilitary imagery in this case, does not require corroboration if it is clear and unambiguous.
Herkes v Dickie (1958 JC 51): Discussed the scope of judicial knowledge, emphasizing that judges do not rely on private knowledge but on commonly accepted facts.
Doyle v Ruxton (1998 SCCR 467): Highlighted that widely recognized facts do not require further proof, reinforcing the notion of judicial knowledge handling common understandings.

These precedents collectively support the court's stance that clear and commonly recognized symbols, such as the paramilitary imagery in question, can be adequately interpreted by the court without the need for extensive corroborative evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the sufficiency of evidence linking the displayed imagery to a proscribed terrorist organization. Key points include:

Narrative Reference: The mention of the IRA was deemed narrative, relying on the sheriff's ability to interpret visual evidence.
Judicial Knowledge: The court emphasized that judicial knowledge encompasses commonly known facts and symbols, allowing judges to interpret clear imagery without expert corroboration.
Paramilitary Symbolism: The specific features of the imagery (black beret, sunglasses, camouflage scarf, Irish tricolor) were deemed sufficient to associate the figure with the IRA or similar organizations.
Corroborative Evidence: While PC Nixon provided contextual expertise, the presence of similar observations from other officers and the clear visual evidence of the images themselves were considered adequate to establish the link without further corroboration.

The court concluded that the sheriff was justified in interpreting the imagery as representing a member of a terrorist organization affiliated with Irish independence, thereby validating the breach of peace charges.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the display of controversial or potentially inciting imagery:

Judicial Interpretation of Symbols: Courts may rely more confidently on judicial knowledge to interpret commonly recognized symbols without necessitating extensive corroborative expert testimony.
Public Order Offenses: The decision reinforces the boundaries of acceptable conduct in public venues, particularly in environments sensitive to sectarian or political tensions.
Evidence Sufficiency: The ruling clarifies that clear and unambiguous evidence does not require additional support, potentially streamlining the prosecution process in similar cases.
Defamation of Expertise: While expert testimony like that of PC Nixon can be influential, the court maintains that sufficient common knowledge can independently substantiate charges.

Overall, the judgment strengthens the framework for addressing public order offenses related to symbolic expressions, ensuring that the legal system can effectively respond to actions that may incite hostility or breach peace.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Knowledge

Judicial Knowledge refers to the understanding and awareness that judges are presumed to have regarding common facts, symbols, and widely accepted information without needing explicit evidence presented for each aspect. It allows judges to interpret and apply the law based on general societal knowledge.

Corroborated Evidence

Corroborated Evidence involves supporting evidence that confirms the truth of a statement or claim. In legal contexts, especially for serious charges, corroboration ensures that no single piece of evidence is relied upon in isolation, thereby strengthening the validity of the claim.

Breach of the Peace

A Breach of the Peace is a legal term used to describe actions that disturb public tranquility or order. It encompasses a wide range of behaviors, from violent acts to actions that could potentially incite hostility or harassment among individuals.

Proscribed Terrorist Organization

A Proscribed Terrorist Organization is a group officially banned by the government due to its involvement in terrorist activities. Association or support for such organizations is illegal and can lead to criminal charges.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's judgment in Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow v Ward; Macaulay; Walker underscores the judiciary's capacity to interpret and act upon commonly recognized symbols without the necessity for exhaustive corroborative evidence. By reaffirming the adequacy of judicial knowledge in assessing paramilitary imagery, the court has set a clear precedent for handling similar public order offenses. This decision not only clarifies the standards for evidence sufficiency in breach of peace cases but also reinforces the legal system's commitment to maintaining public safety and order in environments fraught with potential sectarian tensions.

Legal practitioners and the public alike can take away the importance of understanding how symbolic expressions are perceived within the legal framework and the role of judicial interpretation in such matters. As societal symbols evolve, so too will the necessity for the judiciary to adeptly navigate their implications within the bounds of the law.