Making Sense of the Troubles: A History of the Northern Ireland Conflict

by David McKittrick

Before long, most cases heard by the non-jury courts consisted of the prosecution producing an incriminating statement or statements which the defendant was said to have made voluntarily while in Castlereagh or one of the other interrogation centres. The classic defence in such cases was for the defendant to say that the statement was not admissible in evidence because it had been extracted through either physical or psychological ill-treatment. The outcome of the trial would then turn on whether the judge ruled that the statement had been extracted by fair and legal means or whether detectives had extracted it through threats or by beatings. Both republicans and loyalists claimed brutality had become routine within Castlereagh and that convictions were being secured ‘through the systematic application of torture techniques’.