Please note that names in italics are fictional for legal purposes.
One or two days before Christmas 1983, I received the following letter dated December 21st 1983 from someone whose signature was not decipherable. This person, who should have been able to write so as to be understood since he/she was a civil servant, wrote on behalf of Mr. E. Hayes the Divisional Planning Officer of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Town and Country Planning Service, Rathdune House, New Bridge Street, Downpatrick;
"I refer to the unauthorised advertisement erected at 11 Newcastle Road, Drumaness and for which you are responsible. This constitutes a breach of planning control which should be rectified without delay and I am writing to seek from you within two weeks from the date of this letter, a written assurance that this breach of planning control will be rectified by removal of the said advertisement by 31 January 1983.
The Department wishes to emphasise that unless you undertake to put the matter right, consideration will have to be given to the service of an enforcement notice on you requiring the situation to be remedied. Failure to comply with the terms of an enforcement notice is an offence and, on summary conviction, can result in a heavy fine with further daily fines for each day on which the terms of the notice remain unfulfilled."
In the first place I could not see how I was going to be able to comply with the Department's wish for me to have my "advertisement" removed on January 31st 1983. This was now December 1983! In the second place I did not have an advertisement erected at 11 Newcastle Road. Since late in the year 1980 I did have erected at 11 Newcastle Road a large board, eight feet long by four feet high, on which I vented my frustration at the plight I had been forced into by official dishonesty.
Why had they now, just at Christmas time, chosen to object to it?
Had they chosen to try to spoil my Christmas?
I was to find out with a vengeance that same evening.
My working hours were irregular again since we came back to live at No. 11 in August 1979, and most evenings I would walk out of the garage and into our makeshift home for my evening meal and drop down into a chair for a break before going out to work again. At the same time I tried to take in the early evening news on the TV.
Just by chance that evening the TV was tuned in to the ITV channel and the local Ulster Television news was just starting. To my utter amazement one of the items on the TV news was that Councillors Alfie Jameson and Danny Sloan had won an injunction in the High Court in Belfast that afternoon requiring me, Francis Gerald Rice, to remove my sign from 11 Newcastle Road, Ballynahinch. I could hardly believe it, they had actually fallen for it!
Alfie Jameson and Danny Sloan did not ask Ulster Television to broadcast the result of this matter.
With remarkable timing, I was being given the benefit of both barrels together by officialdom.
I received all the relevant High Court papers personally from an official of the High Court on Christmas Eve night.
Elizabeth the Second, etc., commanded me to appear in the action at the suit of Alfred James Jameson and Daniel J. Sloan. This document was witnessed by The Right Honourable Robert Lynd Erskine, Baron Lowry, Lord chief Justice of Northern Ireland on 22nd December 1983 the day after the Planning Department sent their letter to me about the same affair.
This first document stated on page two at the direction of Richard McLaughlin QC and signed by Vincent Fitzpatrick & Co., solicitors; (Vincent Fitzpatrick is a younger brother of Peter Fitzpatrick who did the conveyancing for me in regard to No. 56 Carlisle Park)
"The Plaintiffs and each of them claim damages for loss and damage sustained by reason of libel contained in a sign positioned by the roadside at Drumaness adjacent to the main public highway between Ballynahinch and Newcastle and readily visible to all passers-by, and in a series of letters addressed to Divers, Teachers, Politicians and similar persons by the Defendant.
The said road sign is on land owned and occupied by the Defendant and was placed in position by him.
An injunction restraining the Defendant from displaying the said sign or any similar sign containing a reference to the Plaintiffs.
An injunction restraining the Defendant by himself his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from communicating by letter or otherwise with any person alleging that the Plaintiffs or either of them were guilty of fraud.
Richard McLaughlin."
Another document stated that before the Honourable Mr. Justice McDermott between Alfred James Jameson and Daniel J. Sloan, Plaintiffs, and Frances Rice, Defendant, "UPON APPLICATION ex parte by Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs for an injunction,
AND UPON READING the writ of summons issued 22nd December 1983 and the affidavits of Alfred James Jameson and Daniel J. Sloan filed this day, AND the plaintiffs by their Counsel undertaking to abide by any order this Court may make as to damages in case this Court shall hereafter be of opinion that the defendant shall have sustained any loss by reason of this order which the plaintiffs ought to pay,
"IT IS ORDERED:
that the defendant be restrained until after Friday, 6th January 1984 or until further order in the meantime from doing whether by himself or through his servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever the following acts or any of them that is to say -
from displaying any sign bearing the inscription "A.J. Jameson - D. Sloan in housing fraud";
from communicating by letter or otherwise with any person or persons alleging that the plaintiffs or either of them were guilty of fraud;
that the plaintiffs have leave to issue a Notice of Motion for an interlocutory injunction returnable on Friday, 6th January, 1984 at 10.30 a.m.;
that the defendant be at liberty to apply to this Court, by Motion of Notice to vary or discharge this Order.
that the costs of this application be reserved."
It was signed by a Proper Officer and underneath was typed the following; "If you the within-named Francis Rice disobey this Order you will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the same."
Another document stated;
"TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the leave of Mr. Justice McDermott given on the 22nd day of December 1983, the Court will be moved on Friday 6th January 1984 at 10.30 a.m. or so soon thereafter as Counsel for the above-named Plaintiffs may be heard for:-
An injunction until the trial of this action to restrain the Defendant from doing whether by himself or through his servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever the following acts or any of them that is to say:-
from displaying any sign bearing the inscription "A.J. Jameson-D. Sloan in housing fraud".
From communicating by letter or otherwise with any person or persons alleging that the Plaintiffs or either of them were guilty of fraud.
Costs.
Dated this 23rd day of December 1983.
Vincent P. Fitzpatrick & Co.
Solicitors for the Plaintiffs,
51 Adelaide Street,
BELFAST."
Since October 1983 I had to give up going to Sunday Mass since I had found it increasingly difficult to stay in Church even in the back seat because of my depression and phobic condition. I was not at Mass this Christmas for the first time in my life. Yet despite everything I felt an actual sense of excitement as I read and re-read these documents. Here was the very first reaction to my protest, my public protest, which I had been carrying on for five and a half years. I had been punished and worse still my wife and children had suffered as a direct result of official wrongdoing. I protested against this wrongdoing and here I was being taken to the highest Court in the land to have my protest stopped and to have the Court punish me further in having costs awarded against me firstly for my having made my protest and secondly to pay for having my protest stopped.
Little did I know at that time the extent to which my children had already been victimised by educated catholic people, including teachers, and the extent to which they were to be victimised in the future because of my stand for justice. Only years later did I call off my public protest when I became aware of the depths of corruption to which catholic people had sunk in their efforts to hurt my wife and me through our young children.
Only then did I really realise that a book had to be written to enable me to tell the whole truth, which really had to be told.
I rang the High Court at the earliest opportunity after Christmas and found out that I had to obtain official papers in order to 'enter an appearance' at the court hearing on January 6th 1984. My wife and daughter travelled to Belfast and collected the papers and brought them home for me to fill in. Gemma and Christine returned them to the High Court right away.
I didn't know how, but somehow I had to be at that High Court on January 6th 1984 and I was determined to fight this case. Practically no work was done from the time I received the High Court papers on Christmas Eve until the Court day. Any work that I did was done in a mechanical way and I was surprised the number of times I had to stop to jot down the many thoughts I had that could be helpful on the day. Most of the time was taken up studying my two-book World Book Dictionary, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the very few elderly law books in my possession and trying over and over again to put on paper an effective answer to what was contained in these documents.
I had already a very encouraging head start. Educated people, or rather academically educated professional people, especially in the legal profession, so often become pedantic and patronising to the point of arrogance which causes them to be unable to carry out the job they are being paid large amounts of money to do. It seems that this is one possible explanation as to why I was given a head start. God knows I needed one. I wasn't going to be employing an academically educated solicitor or QC, but the glaring mistake in the High Court documents I had spotted immediately, gave me hope.
I worked my will power up as best as I could for the day in Court. I was unable to drive through the city myself so I planned the situation to cope with my phobia. I got Andrea, then eighteen, to drive the car with Stephen to accompany her, and Gemma and I were left off at the entrance to the High Court.
Andrea and Stephen were to find their way back to the High Court for the hearing and then they would leave after the hearing, collect the car and we would be waiting for them to collect us at the High Court entrance. I needed Gemma's company and I also needed to be spared walking along pavements in the city. It all went smoothly except that the children did not make it to the Court for the hearing.
I believe that they preferred to miss the hearing. Gemma and I went into the proper courtroom just about 10.30 am. I had my briefcase full of papers and Gemma had her handbag and a separate bag containing the first half of the World Book Dictionary. I felt quite good.
The courtroom was full to my surprise and almost immediately a tall slim judge entered and I heard a list of cases being read out. My case, No. 5995, was third on the list. After a few minutes of talk which I could not make out but which seemed to entail a case being dealt with or adjourned, the judge, Mr. Justice McDermott, suddenly got up and left the Courtroom.
I didn't know what was happening so I asked a young man wearing a wig and gown who was passing me at the back of the court and he said that the judge was hearing cases in another courtroom. I asked him about mine and showed him my court papers and he said my case was to be heard in the other court room too.
Gemma and I left and went into the other courtroom to find it empty but for the judge and a man with earphones up at the front near the judge, a lady and some legal people facing the judge. I learned afterwards that it was a divorce case and was being heard in private and after we went into this courtroom the judge spoke down to Gemma and me and asked us to spend our time usefully and maybe get a cup of tea while this case was in progress and come back to the courtroom about 11.45 am. We did just that.
I wrote the following letter to my very good friend Father Liam Boyle a day or two after the hearing;
"Dear Rev. Father Boyle,
I'm sure it was only a coincidence that I was the guest of Mr. Justice McDermott and Richard McLaughlin QC at the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court on Friday past, the feast of the Epiphany.
Actually, I did not expect to be in front of a High Court judge, since the Belfast Community Law Centre, which I rang to ascertain procedure told me that I would only at this stage be appearing in front of a Registrar.
However, Andrea drove Gemma, Stephen and myself down to the Law Courts and left Gemma and me off while they found a car-park. We made our way to the courtroom after waiting about half an hour, and a number of cases were referred to Mr. Justice McDermott, and it seemed that Jameson & Sloan v. Rice was third.
Then before, as we thought, the first case proper would be called, the Judge left and we had to go into a bigger courtroom, where Mr. Justice McDermott had already seated himself.
I was met by Richard McLoughlin QC who had his name at the bottom of the writ which was prepared by Vincent Fitzpatrick & Co., Solicitors. He (Richard McLoughlin) introduced us to Miss McGrady the instructing solicitor for Alfie Jameson and Danny Sloan and told me that because I was representing myself, he as a barrister had a duty to see fair play was done. I was most appreciative and the Judge then asked us to be ready at 11.45 am as there was one case in front of us to be heard.
Even now I am still unwinding from the effects of subsequent events. When we were called, Mr. McLaughlin told the Judge that I was representing myself and the Judge said that that was my right. He then suggested that the usual procedure be pursued and I was then sworn-in in the witness box.
After referring to the sign I have erected outside the above address on which I have painted Alfie Jameson's and Danny Sloan's names, and letters I have sent variously, he gave me the opportunity to comment on the fact that Alfie and Danny had found them libellous to an extent that an injunction had been sought and won before Christmas.
Well, my comment went on for over an hour. I got such a hearing and made such an impact that at the end when asked by the Judge if he wanted to question me, Mr. McLoughlin said that he didn't.
First of all I told the Judge that my address on the Writ was wrong, even the post code. He noted that.
Then the main point. I told him or rather I asked him to compare what I had on my sign with what Alfie's and Danny's sworn affidavits said I had on my sign.
Then I told the Judge that what was on the Writ was not what was on my sign. The Writ referred to, I told the Judge, "A. J. Jameson - D. Sloan in housing fraud" I said that my sign said;
"A.J. JAMESON / D. SLOAN (in green paint)
IN - HOUSING FRAUD (in red paint)
7 YEARS & 1 MONTH OLD (in black paint)"
I spoke in great detail about it thus, "My Lord, my sign reads capital A full stop,
capital J full stop, JAMESON in capital letters, virgule, D full stop.."
"What?" he said, I said "Virgule, My Lord," "What's that?" the Judge said. I looked down the courtroom to attract Gemma's attention (there was still no sign of Andrea and Stephen) but Gemma's head was bowed down. I'm sure she was praying.
The Clerk of the Court read the situation and went down to Gemma and she gave him the first book of the new World Dictionary.
I opened it up at pronunciation at the front or the dictionary and showed the Judge what a virgule is. I told him what he was already reading in the dictionary, viz., that a virgule qualified the word on either side of it to cause them to mean in a sentence one or the other.
I said that my sign said A.J. JAMESON or D. SLOAN not A.J. JAMESON and D. SLOAN. Certainly if my sign were to be libellous of both it would have to refer to both which it didn't, grammatically.
So the stage was set. I went on to say that as well as that the name would have to be in the nominative case, whereas the names on my sign were in the vocative case. The second line contained a hyphen (I went into the same detail as in the first line) which was a compound prepositional phrase saying "fraud in housing".
He again studied the dictionary at "in" and I said something like,
"My Lord, the word "in" is a very powerful word, it can make justice injustice, competence incompetence, and in the sign I have erected it means exclusive, which is in fact referred to in the dictionary e.g. in-group.
It is exclusive, because one house in this fraud, literally a stone's throw from my permanent address at 56 Carlisle Park, Ballynahinch, was bought, "and I emphasise the word bought," I said, "five times within a period of two and a half years."
I went on, "On my way here My Lord I was subject to coloured traffic lights, black and white zebra crossings, double yellow lines etc., hence the different colours of paint on my sign, (on a white background). The green paint says, "Go A.J. JAMESON or D. SLOAN," and the red paint says, "Stop fraud in housing".
The Judge said, quietly as always, "On the face of it any one passing that sign would read that you are saying that these two men are in a housing fraud." I said, "My Lord, is this Court going to punish me because passers-by are ignorant of the Queen's English which includes punctuation?".
I then offered the Judge the summons I got as part of the Writ which begins, "ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the grace of God, etc., etc.
I said, "If I could give Your Lordship an example of how important punctuation is, you will see at the beginning of the summons it reads,
"Elizabeth, comma, the .." "No," the Judge said quickly, "The comma is after the word second."
"But My Lord," I said, "If the comma had been put after Elizabeth the meaning would be horrendous."
The Judge never spoke, never moved a muscle in his face but very quickly handed back the summons.
I told the Judge, "You know My Lord, basically, your profession and my profession have much in common. We are both in the repair business."
He laughed. "Your Lordship repairs breakdowns in the law and I repair breakdowns in cars. I have to adjust things like fan belts and it takes a little know-how.
This Court is being asked here today to make and adjustment - against me. If it does it will put further out of adjustment a matter which is the cause of my erecting my sign which is in fact an effect." I then referred to Etiology.
He looked at the copies of the letters I had sent, my scrapbooks of press cuttings which he referred to in his summing up. He told me that if solicitors didn't work for me the course of action was against those solicitors.
I told him that I had even stopped writing to the Law Society. He advised me to take down the sign. I told him that I would willingly take down the sign if it were libellous, but my sign was a request to those two councillors to grant me the same protection under the law which they were asking this Court to give them and I couldn't take down the sign. After much more (which was all taped by the Court of course) he asked me if I wanted to say anything else. I said, "My Lord, if I were to say Your Lordship was in court today anyone would know in what capacity Your Lordship was in Court.
If anyone did in fact read out of my sign that A.J. JAMESON and D. SLOAN were in a housing fraud, people, especially all the thousands of people who have voted for these two most eminent men in Down District would know in what capacity they were in that fraud - to tramp on it."
I had said earlier that I had chosen these two people in the preparation of my sign for several reasons. First, they were in my estimation the two most eminent men on Down District Council. They were my co-religionists. Neither were in my electoral ward. Mr. Jameson had been my accountant for years and Mr. Sloan was a brother of the Pope's right hand man. I even made an excuse for Alfie when the Council was disinformed when he was chairman. Of course I said a bit about No. 56 but not much.
No reporters were present. In fact the Court was empty except for Gemma and me, the Judge, barrister, solicitor, recordist and a man who kept coming in and going out of a side door, he must have thought I was going to go on all day.
The injunction has been extended nevertheless which suits me very well, but according to last night's Belfast Telegraph, the costs were reserved. I missed that little bit at the end when I left the witness box. The Telegraph reported, "The Judge said that Mr. Rice had indicated to the Court that it was not a defamitory statement, but a request to the two councillors to act on his behalf. "In my view, a person reading that sign could well come to the conclusion that it was an allegation of fraud. That is a serious matter," Mr. Justice McDermott said. So while weighing in against me the good Judge has (after the Telegraph had stated earlier that Alfie's and Danny's names were on the sign) put the cat among the pigeons in a way, through the Telegraph, that my sign could never have done and in fact doesn't even do.
So, Father, the hours of study over Christmas and since have, as far as I am concerned, been rewarded in a way I could not even have dreamed of. It looks as if we have lift-off. Now I start to prepare a bigger defence in the knowledge that the opposition will be prepared to meet me at my level as well as their own the next time. I am looking forward to it already."
I wrote to Mr. Justice McDermott on January 12th 1984 to thank him for his courtesy and patience at the High Court on January 6th and to ask when the trial might take place.
The Chief Clerk in the High Court wrote to me to explain that the Judge could not reply to me personally. He thanked me for my letter and stated that the trial would take place when both parties lodged the appropriate papers.
I'm sure that it must have been a slip on the part of the typist who addressed the letter to me, quote,
"Francis Gerald Rice, Solicitor."
About six weeks later I rang this same gentleman in the High Court to see what was happening. He told me that he did remember the case and he would find out what was happening and ring me back in the afternoon.
He rang me back in less than an hour and told me that the matter was not going any further. I said that there was surely some mistake since the Judge had reserved the costs of the case and a trial had to take place to determine at the very least who was going to have to pay those costs.
"Oh," he said, "That has all been taken care of."
When I got over my surprise and the full implications of what had happened registered in my head I felt angry at being cheated out of a public court debate on the whole dirty affair, but my anger was soon replaced by a grand feeling of success.
Once again silence had become the refuge of District Councillors just as it had been their refuge when debating various matters relating to my case in the Council Chamber.
It must have cost them many thousands of pounds for that silence, but it must have been worth it to them. Of course the money may have been paid by the SDLP whose membership is mainly professional and well-to-do members of the Catholic Church.
I replaced my sign after obeying the injunction following the January 6th hearing and no action was taken. I then changed the names on the sign and still no action was taken - at that time. No legal action was taken, but a sick and ugly vendetta against my children had already begun in St. Colman's High School. It would be four more years before I found out about it.