Bail and sentencing policy in terror cases need urgent reform

George Hamilton said: “Those violent dissident republicans already know the success rate that we’ve had in recent months and years against them.”

He added: “That will continue relentlessly and I’m confident that we’ll be able to bring more and more of these people to justice and allow due process to follow through the courts.”

What Mr Hamilton said might, strictly speaking, be true in that cases are coming to court. But the implication of what he said, which is that dissidents might be worried about these supposed successes against them, is badly wrong. The dissidents cannot possibly be anxious about the response of the state towards their attempted murder and mayhem.

It is, in fact, not merely lenient, but scandalously so at every stage of the process, even after conviction.

Sentences for serious dissident offences are woefully inadequate, as the three sentences that we examine in today’s newspaper, given to republican terrorists, demonstrate.

Bail policy has been shown to be a shambles by spectacularly naive decisions in cases involving serious dissident charges.

In fairness to Mr Hamilton, and his performance on radio, this is not his fault. He cannot easily criticise the wider criminal justice response to terrorism. Indeed it is his officers who among the most at risk of being killed.

The courts, when we asked about bail policy and asked if they thought there was a problem after the disappearance of Damien McLaughlin, merely said that the matter is under review.

Well in case there is any doubt in anyone’s mind about whether there is a problem, let us state the obvious: there is.

The UUP are raising the subject at Stormont today, but much more needs to be done. For a start, Claire Sugden should make clear that she too sees that both bail and sentencing are a problem, addressing which will be one of her top priorities. Sunday’s attack showed the gravity of the threat.