Latest News › The Framing of Michael McKevitt Brought To The Attention of Australian High Court Judge

Members of the Michael McKevitt Justice Campaign attended the second annual Law Society of Ireland Human Rights public lecture, entitled The Dreyfus Case A Century On—Ten lessons for Ireland and Australia in Dublin (29/06/06). The lecture was delivered by the Hon. Justice Michael Kirby, a member of the  Australian High Court .

There was a short questions and answers session after the lecture was delivered. It was pointed out to Judge Kirby that the similarities between the Dreyfuss case and Michael McKevitt’s case were incredible. Judge Kirby was presented with a copy of the booklet, ‘The Framing of Michael McKevitt’’, which he agreed to read.

Justice Kirby is one of Australia's longest serving judges. He has served on the Federal Court of Australia, as President of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales and of Solomon Islands.  In addition, Justice Kirby has held numerous international posts. He has been awarded the Australian Human Rights Medal and was Laureate of the UNESCO Prize for Human Rights Education.

Justice Kirby had suggested the theme of the lecture l'Affaire Dreyfus. Reading about the Dreyfus Affair, he was struck by its relevance to modern Human Rights law. He expounded the ten human rights lessons to be drawn for today. Below are a number of excerpts taken from the lessons.

 · Vigilance against miscarriages:

“The lesson of the Dreyfus case, and of countless cases since, is that decision-makers who have control over important decisions on behalf of the society must always retain an open mind. They must never join a popular bandwagon. And society must maintain a questioning attitude towards officialdom.”

· Alert to stigmatized minorities:

“The lesson of the Dreyfus affair is that judges, prosecutors and advocates must be on their guard to ensure that prejudices do not affect official decision-making”

· Beware of military tribunals:

“The subordination of military power to civilian power is one of the key elements in a successful modern democracy. We must keep it unimpaired.”

· Beware of secret trials:

“The fact that national security was repeatedly asserted as the reason for the secrecy of the Dreyfus trial demonstrates the need for appropriate caution and skepticism about the justification for such claims. … It was only a small band of supporters, and the gradual emergence of the truth, that saved this innocent man from such a fate….How many innocent people languish for lack of supporters and skilled advocates?”

· Protection for people of conscience:

“The Dreyfus case also demonstrates the importance of protecting people of conscience. .. What changed the outcome of the Dreyfus case was the adherence to the Dreyfus side of intellectuals and civil libertarians. In Australia and Ireland, there are people, some in the law, who do not much like intellectuals, criminologists and do-gooders. They are attacked as ‘egg-heads’. ...Further, there are people who condemn civil libertarians and reject the legitimacy of their role….Yet, it was the Dreyfus case that led to the establishment of the French League for Human and Civic Rights. Writers, philosophers, journalists and lawyers joined the League. It gave focus to the gathering disquiet about the Dreyfus conviction. It mobilized the belief that a serious wrong should be righted.

· Scrutiny of authority:

“The Dreyfus affair is a story about spies. Acting on partial information, embracing a theory, defending national security and honour as they saw it, their ‘intelligence’ and ‘proof’ took France, a great democratic republic down the road where it seemed willing to sacrifice an individual to defend the honour of the nation and its Army.”

· Mainenance of secularism:

“Another lesson of the Dreyfus case is the importance of keeping religious beliefs separate from the institutions of the State and processes of the law.”

· Ambivalent role of the media:

“The media played an ambivalent role during the Dreyfus affair. On the one hand, in the earliest years, sections of the media inflamed the anti-Semitism so evident in the news reports and editorials of the Church-supporting newspapers such as La Libre Parole and La Croix. These journalists played their part in suppressing the early attempts to right the wrong of the Dreyfus convictions. They affirmed his guilt largely because of his Jewishness and because the institutions of the state were being accused.”

· Need for institutional changes:

“Thinking on the Dreyfus case today, in Ireland and Australia, we can conclude that improvements in society’s institutions are needed, including sometimes in the attitudes of officials who constitute those institutions. Minimising the role of the military tribunals, resisting secret trials; examining closely claims of national security; protecting stignatised  minorities; upholding secularism. All  of these are necessities shown in stark relief by what happened to Alfred Dreyfus.”

· Proffering apologies for wrongs:

“The Dreyfus affair speaks powerfully to Jewish people everywhere, including in Ireland and Australia. This is especially so because of the genocide that quickly followed. But  it also speaks clearly of wrongs done in Australia to Aboriginals, to Asian Australians, to Arab and Islamic Australians, to gays and other sexual minorities, to women, to the very old and young, to the mentally and physically disabled, to prisoners, refugees and to unconventional people. No doubt, in Ireland, it speaks clearly to people who have been wrongly branded under anti-terrorism laws; or wrongfully convicted of crimes in the general courts. We must not think that such wrongs are over or that full enlightenment has arrived. Dreyfus belongs to Jewish people. But he also belongs to all human beings. Down the years, and even down the centuries, his cry as he was sent to exile from the courtyard of the École Militaire in Paris will ring out as a warning against miscarriages of justice:

“Innocent! Innocent! Vive la France’ “

Posted on 04 Aug 2006