Kelly release a political fraud
15 September 2005
Statement by DUP MEP, JIM ALLISTER:
"I have been continuing to press the NIO in correspondence about the release of Sean Kelly. The latest response Shaun Woodward as Security Minister has exposed the indefensible nature of the decision to release Kelly without seeking police advice.
I had written on 17th August 2005 with this challenge:-
"I must say I am astounded that the police were not consulted before the executive decision was taken to perfect this release. Before, Kelly was detained because of a conviction that he "would be a danger to others if he were at liberty", presumably, the PSNI was consulted and their advice taken. Please confirm. Thus, does it not inexorably follow that before an informed decision could be taken to release him, the police view would again be required since public safety was a core issue? Why, then, was this not done?"
The pitiful response of the Security Minister is as follows:-
"Regarding the role of the police in this matter, the Secretary of State has made clear that the decision to suspend Mr Kelly's original licence was made having considered material provided by the police. On the question of the need to obtain police advice before granting Mr Kelly temporary release, I agree entirely with what Lord Rooker said in his letter of 10 August and have nothing to add."
What Lord Rooker had said in his reply of 10th August 2005 was, "When deciding whether or not to grant a prisoner temporary release, all the circumstances of that individual case are considered. It is not normal practice to obtain PSNI advice as there is usually sufficient information about the individual held by the Prison Service. The normal practice was followed in Mr Kelly's case."
Hence my challenge of 17th August to explain how someone can be detained on police advice as a security risk yet released without even consulting the police. To have the Security Minister respond by merely saying he has "nothing to add" to Rooker's non-reply, is clear confirmation that even the NIO, with all its ingenuity for spin, cannot provide any figleaf for the outrageous decision to order release without taking security advice. Here is the clearest possible confirmation that this was a nakedly political decision, paid as a price for the IRA statement.
The legislation under which Kelly was released permits the NIO to attach conditions to his licence. I naturally asked what conditions were attached in the case of Kelly. Mr Woodward's reply causes me to conclude none were imposed. The Minister tries to hide behind the pathetic assertion that such would be protected personal data. That, I believe, is nonsense.
It also now seems likely that Kelly was released without him having to submit an application for release, as clearly anticipated in the relevant Rules. Once more, special treatment was afforded, I believe, to sweeten the IRA."
