See new posts

Citizen Journalism article concerning Michael Comyn KC and the Clifford and O’Sullivan case.

15 web pages

Citizen Journalism Article: Michael Comyn KC and the Clifford and O’Sullivan Case – A Legal Battle for Justice

In the turbulent years of Ireland’s struggle for independence, one legal case stood out as a testament to the power of innovative legal strategy and the fight for justice: the Clifford and O’Sullivan case of 1921. At the heart of this landmark case was Michael Comyn KC, an Irish barrister whose bold approach saved 42 men from execution and left an indelible mark on constitutional law. This citizen journalism piece explores Comyn’s role, the case’s significance, and its broader implications, drawing on historical accounts and reflecting on its relevance today.

The Context: Ireland Under Martial Law

In 1920, Ireland was engulfed in the War of Independence, with tensions between Irish republicans and British authorities at a boiling point. The British administration imposed martial law in areas like County Cork, where Viscount French, the Lord Lieutenant, issued proclamations to curb republican activity. One such decree, enforced by British Commander-in-Chief Sir Nevil Macready, required civilians to surrender all arms, ammunition, and explosives by December 27, 1920. Failure to comply meant trial by military court and, upon conviction, a death sentence. General Sir E.P. Strickland was appointed to oversee these military courts, which operated with little regard for due process.

In April 1921, 42 men, including Clifford and O’Sullivan, were arrested near Mitchelstown, County Cork, for possessing arms. Tried by a military tribunal, they faced execution. The situation was dire, and the military courts’ authority seemed absolute. Enter Michael Comyn, a barrister with a reputation for defending republican prisoners and a deep commitment to justice.

Michael Comyn: The Man Behind the Defense

Michael Comyn (1871–1952) was no ordinary lawyer. Born in County Clare to a tenant farmer and Land League activist, Comyn’s early life was shaped by the injustices of British rule, including his family’s eviction in 1879. A nationalist at heart, he was in Kansas City with Sinn Féin founder Arthur Griffith during the 1916 Easter Rising. Upon returning to Ireland, he became a fierce advocate for republican prisoners, arguing cases before the House of Lords and earning a reputation for tenacity.

When solicitor James G. Skinner from Mitchelstown approached Comyn and his brother James with the desperate plea, “Do anything but do something… Invent something if necessary,” Comyn rose to the challenge. The Clifford and O’Sullivan case was not just a legal battle; it was a matter of life and death for 42 men.

The Legal Strategy: Prohibition as a Novel Defense

Comyn’s genius lay in his decision to apply for a writ of Prohibition, an obscure legal remedy rarely used in such contexts. His argument was bold: the military court was illegal and lacked jurisdiction to try the defendants or adjudicate their cases. This approach was a gamble, as it challenged the very foundation of British military authority in Ireland.

The case began in the Chancery Division in Ireland, where Mr. Justice Powell heard Comyn’s application. Despite the compelling argument, Powell felt constrained to dismiss it, citing legal precedents. Undeterred, Comyn appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the Crown argued that Powell’s order was made in a “criminal cause or matter” under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1877, meaning no appeal was permissible. The Court of Appeal, led by O’Connor, M.R., and Lord Justices Ronan and O’Connel, upheld this view and dismissed the appeal.

Comyn’s persistence led the case to the House of Lords on June 16, 1921, just six weeks after the military court’s verdict. Led by Sir John Simon KC, Comyn, his nephew James Comyn, Joe McCarthy (later a judge), and Richard O’Sullivan presented their case. The House of Lords, however, ruled against the appeal on July 28, 1921. Their Lordships, including four Scottish judges and Lord Atkinson from Ireland, held that Prohibition was inappropriate because the military court was not a judicial tribunal and its officers were functi officio (no longer in office). They also avoided delving into the case’s merits, wary that habeas corpus might be attempted next.

The Outcome: A Royal Intervention

Despite the legal setback, the Clifford and O’Sullivan case had a remarkable outcome. Comyn later revealed that King George V, shocked by the prospect of executing 42 men, personally intervened. According to Comyn, the king secured a promise from the prime minister that no executions would take place and that peace negotiations would proceed. None of the 42 men were executed, and following the Anglo-Irish Treaty later that year, they were freed.

This intervention underscored the case’s significance beyond the courtroom. James Comyn, Michael’s nephew and a distinguished barrister, later cited Clifford and O’Sullivan as a leading authority in constitutional law, highlighting its impact on challenging unchecked military power. Notably, no republican prisoner defended by Comyn during the “troubles” faced the death penalty, a testament to his skill and dedication.

Reflections: Citizen Journalism and Historical Memory

As a citizen journalist, revisiting the Clifford and O’Sullivan case offers valuable lessons. It highlights the power of individuals like Comyn to challenge systemic injustice through creativity and courage. In an era when professional journalism often struggles to cover local and historical stories due to resource constraints, citizen journalists can fill the gap by uncovering and sharing narratives that might otherwise be forgotten.

The case also resonates with contemporary debates about the rule of law and the rights of the accused. Military tribunals, then and now, raise questions about due process and fairness. Comyn’s use of Prohibition reminds us that legal innovation can be a tool for justice, even in the face of overwhelming odds.

Moreover, the case underscores the importance of public pressure and high-profile intervention. King George V’s role, while controversial, shows how visibility can sway outcomes. Today, citizen journalists amplify marginalized voices and hold power to account, much like Comyn did in the courtroom.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Justice

Michael Comyn KC’s defense in the Clifford and O’Sullivan case was a masterclass in legal strategy and moral conviction. By leveraging an obscure remedy and navigating a hostile legal system, he saved 42 lives and set a precedent in constitutional law. His story, preserved in historical records and family accounts, deserves to be remembered as a beacon of resistance against injustice.

As citizen journalists, we have a duty to unearth such stories, connecting past struggles to present challenges. The Clifford and O’Sullivan case reminds us that one person’s ingenuity can change history—and that the fight for justice is never truly over.

Sources:

• Wikipedia entry on Michael Comyn
• Canisgallicus.com, family history notes on Michael Comyn KC
• James Comyn’s legal writings on the Clifford and O’Sullivan case

Note: This article is written from a citizen journalism perspective, aiming to inform and inspire while critically examining historical narratives. For further details, readers are encouraged to explore primary sources and legal archives.