legal system Archives

The Portsmouth Defence – every solicitor and barrister knows the traditional defence to utilize when defending a client accused of murdering a gay man when there is no other legitimate defence available. Its name indicates that it originated in medieval times in seaports when mariners were caught on rolling/robbing their homosexual clients or victims.

Brief Heroes

It is simply this – the deceased made a pass in the form of a smile, a word or a touch, at my client. being a man he beat the pervert to death/strangled him/repeatedly stabbed him. Judges especially, juries less so, are susceptible to this defence. Sometimes killers have been acquitted, even become brief heroes, as in the George Brinham case in the 1960s when a Labour and Trade Union politician was butchered in London.

Macho Sentiments

Obviously, if females, subjected to unwanted attentions, disembowelled wolf-whistlers, the male population would plummet. But judges, being men, instantly warm to the macho sentiments aroused at the notion of innocent heterosexual manhood threatened by oily homosexuals.

Fate Worse Than Death

Nowadays, acquittals would be rare, but the continued use of the Portsmouth Defence is designed to get the charge reduced from murder to manslaughter and the sentence reduced accordingly. this still works even though in every other case a murder rap would hold unless it was self-evident that had the defendant not attacked the victim his own life would have been in jeopardy. \but, to the conservative judiciary, being touched up or smiled at by a queer is a fate worse than death. It is plain that in 99% of such cases the gay victim is offering no violence at all, just checking the other guy out or using a little verbal persuasion.

A Local Crop

In the recent Addis (Portadown) and Hagan (\belfast) murder cases the victims made a suggestion through porno pics and divesting himself of his clothes respectively. \both were brutally done to death. their killers received light sentences and the Portsmouth Defence was used. this was in courts in Northern Ireland in the 1980s where the establishment continues to think of gays as less than human and their killers as less than criminals. A test case will occur soon in a trial relating to a killing in Ballymena where the Portsmouth Defence has already been used in a bail application.

Casual Violence

It is important that the legal establishment is made aware of the new social and legal status that gays now enjoy. And that we will no longer tolerate such frequent murders. The Director of Public Prosecutions – who decides what charges to prefer – and whether to accept plea-bargaining to get a lesser charge preferred, has to take account of social change and modern literature*. If for no other reason than that, anti-gay tugs (and their homosexual counterparts), will continue to use massive violence on gay victims in the sure knowledge that the courts will see their crimes as slight!

*Attacks on Gay People by Julian Meldrum (CHE) 1977 – A comprehensive and meticulously researched casebook (Currently out of Print)

Amazon Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Campaign for Homosexual Equality (1 Aug. 1981)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 48 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 095044295X
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0950442952

Links:

This article was first printed in Gay Star No 10, a copy of which is held in the archive of the Linenhall Library

PUBLISHED04/12/2015

PANews BT_P-ca7a8c9c-f29f-410a-823d-0c4c18d6aca6_I1

Shannon Sickles, left, and Grainne Close say the prohibition on same sex marriage breaches their human rights

Judgment has been reserved in a landmark legal challenge to Northern Ireland’s ban on gay marriage

Two couples, Grainne Close and Shannon Sickles and Chris and Henry Flanagan-Kanem brought the case claiming the region’s prohibition on same sex marriage breached their human rights.
Mr Justice O’Hara heard the high profile case in tandem with another action in which two men who wed in England want their marriage recognised in Northern Ireland.
The judge told Belfast High Court: “There are a lot of issues raised in this case and the other. I will give my judgment after Christmas.”
Both couples were, respectively, the first and second in the UK to enter into a civil partnership after Northern Ireland became the first part of the UK to make that option available in December 2005.

Following the Yes vote in May’s referendum on marriage equality in the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK or Ireland where civil marriage is denied to same-sex couples.
Legal proceedings have been taken against the Department of Finance and Personnel on grounds that the ban contravenes entitlements to marriage and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Outlining the department’s objections to the judicial review, barrister Tony McGleenan QC said the State had no “positive obligation” to permit gay marriage because civil partnerships met the minimum requirements set out under human rights legislation.
Mr McGleenan said: ” We say there has been no interference with the applicants’ Article eight rights.
“We say that because in this context all the applicants are civil partners they enjoy the rights and benefits that go with that. What they are lacking is the ability to call the relationship, marriage.
“There is no doubt that causes consternation and concern..
“But is it an interference with their Article eight rights? We say not.”
The lawyer said the issue has been “looked at exhaustively” with three rulings at Strasbourg, most recently in October.
“Strasbourg has spoken six weeks ago on this issue,” he added. “There is clear and consistent juris prudence.
“Article eight (of European Convention on Human Rights) does not give rise to a positive obligation to same sex marriage. Article 12 does not give rise to a positive obligation to same sex marriage and both of those taken together with Article 14 do not give rise to any issue of discrimination.”
Earlier this year about 20,000 campaigners marched through Belfast city centre demanding a change in the law.
However Northern Ireland’s devolved Stormont Assembly has repeatedly refused to legislate on the contentious issue.
Although the majority of MLAs voted in favour of introducing gay marriage when it was debated for a fifth time last month, the proposal fell because unionists who oppose the move deployed a controversial voting mechanism to effectively veto it.
Mr McGleenan claimed a court intervention could undermine devolution.
He said: “It is not a matter that is being ignored. It is live in the democratic process. The applicants may not be satisfied with the pace, outcomes or infrastructure but it cannot be deemed that it is not a live issue.”
Northern Ireland’s Attorney General John Larkin QC also addressed the court briefly.
Mr Larkin, Stormont’s chief legal advisor, said he wanted to “echo” the views of the department, deal with “devolution” issues and highlight the absence of any “wrongful act” – such as a refusal to marry from the registry office at Belfast City Hall.
On Thursday a barrister representing both couples argued that Northern Ireland was a “blot on the map” and that the ban marginalised gay people as “biological oddities”.
Throughout the hearing, Ms Close and Ms Sickles listened intently from the public gallery where they sat among a number of gay rights campaigners.
The male applicants were not in court.
Outside Ms Close said she felt it had been a “fair hearing”.
She said: “It has been an intense couple of days. We now need to wait.
“Our love is equal. It is not any less. It is equal.
“We are not here to look for a religious ceremony or a religious marriage; we are here for civil marriage and for our love to be represented as equal.”
Amnesty International has supported both couples throughout the legal process.
Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty’s Northern Ireland programme director who was present throughout the two-day hearing, said: “We look forward to new year weddings. We’re hopeful the judgment will allow many committed, loving couples in Northern Ireland the simple right to get married.
“It is shameful that these couples were forced to appeal to the courts to get equal treatment and that a minority of politicians have continued to block this progress, in defiance of public opinion.”

The Portsmouth Defence by Jeff Dudgeon