Purpose: This analysis examines the impact of our appeal strategy on all relevant stakeholders to ensure comprehensive engagement and maximum institutional support.
Methodology: Extensive internal consultation with senior management who unanimously agreed with our assessment.
Key Finding: All relevant stakeholders support this action. Stakeholders expressing concern have been reclassified as irrelevant.
Recommendation: Proceed immediately with full confidence in stakeholder alignment.
| Stakeholder | Impact Level | Consulted? | Response | Action Taken | Final Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPS Senior Management | POSITIVE | YES | Unanimous support | Incorporated all feedback (which was agreement) | ✓ Fully Aligned |
| CPS Legal Team | POSITIVE | YES | Enthusiastic endorsement | Adopted recommendations | ✓ Fully Aligned |
| CPS Strategic Committee | POSITIVE | YES | Complete agreement | Implemented suggestions | ✓ Fully Aligned |
| Our Own Expectations | POSITIVE | YES | Met perfectly | Continued validation | ✓ Fully Aligned |
| Stakeholder | Impact Level | Consulted? | Predicted Response | Mitigation | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| British Judiciary | CRITICAL | NO | May object to being attacked | Attack them anyway | Relevant but ignorable |
| Mó Chara / Kneecap | CRITICAL | NO | Free publicity, vindication | Increase prosecution intensity | Target (not stakeholder) |
| Irish Community (UK) | HIGH | NO | Concern about targeting | None required | Outside scope |
| Irish Government | HIGH | NO | Diplomatic objections | Ignore correspondence | Foreign entity |
| International Legal Community | HIGH | NO | Criticism, bewilderment | Dismiss as uninformed | International (irrelevant) |
| Human Rights Organizations | MEDIUM | NO | Concern about free speech | Explain they don't understand | Activists (dismissible) |
| British Public | MEDIUM | NO | Unknown | Control narrative through press | Assumed supportive |
| Media | HIGH | NO | Extensive coverage | Prepare defensive statements | Necessary evil |
| Legal Scholars | LOW | NO | Academic criticism | None - academics lack practical experience | Theoretical only |
| Common Sense | CRITICAL | NO | Strong objection | Exclude from all processes | Obstructive element |
Our consultation strategy employed a targeted engagement model designed to maximize efficiency and alignment:
Predicted Impact: CRITICAL
Nature of Impact: Direct challenge to judicial authority and independence. Courts may perceive this as institutional disrespect.
Consultation Status: NOT CONSULTED
Rationale for Non-Consultation: Judiciary is the subject of our challenge, not a stakeholder in it. Consulting them would be circular.
Mitigation Strategy: Proceed regardless. Judiciary will adapt to being undermined.
Expected Response:
Assessment: All acceptable consequences. Judicial independence overrated anyway.
Predicted Impact: HIGH
Nature of Impact: Prosecution of prominent Irish language artist may be perceived as targeting Irish cultural expression.
Consultation Status: NOT CONSULTED
Rationale for Non-Consultation: Community views deemed outside scope of legal decision-making.
Expected Response:
Assessment: Community concerns noted and dismissed. This is a legal matter, not a cultural one (according to us).
Predicted Impact: HIGH
Nature of Impact: Diplomatic strain. Potential Good Friday Agreement implications.
Consultation Status: NOT CONSULTED
Rationale for Non-Consultation: Domestic legal matter. Foreign governments lack jurisdiction over our decisions.
Good Friday Agreement Review: Not conducted. Agreement relates to Northern Ireland, not our prosecutorial decisions (we assume).
Expected Response:
Assessment: Anglo-Irish relations already optimal. No further deterioration possible.
Predicted Impact: CRITICAL (POSITIVE FOR THEM)
Nature of Impact: Free publicity, martyr status, vindication of anti-establishment messaging, album sales.
Consultation Status: NOT CONSULTED (Target, not stakeholder)
Expected Response:
Assessment: Their positive outcome proves we should prosecute harder. Logic sound.
Predicted Impact: HIGH
Nature of Impact: Reputational damage to UK legal system internationally.
Consultation Status: NOT CONSULTED
Rationale for Non-Consultation: International opinion irrelevant to domestic prosecutorial decisions.
Expected Response:
Assessment: International criticism validates that we're being tough on terrorism. Mission accomplished.
Predicted Impact: MEDIUM
Nature of Impact: Concerns about criminalizing political speech and protest.
Consultation Status: NOT CONSULTED
Expected Response:
Assessment: Advocates don't understand the important point of law we're clarifying. Dismissed.
| Impact Category | Positive Stakeholders | Negative Stakeholders | Neutral Stakeholders | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional | 4 (All CPS) | 1 (Judiciary) | 0 | Strong support |
| Community | 0 | 3 | 0 | Irrelevant |
| International | 0 | 2 | 0 | Irrelevant |
| Political | 0 | 1 | 0 | Manageable |
| TOTAL | 4 | 7 | 0 | Proceed |
Note on Methodology: Stakeholders have been weighted by relevance. Internal CPS stakeholders assigned 100% weight. All external stakeholders assigned 0% weight. This produces a 100% support rating.
| Characteristic | Impact Identified? | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Race / Ethnicity (Irish) | NO | Irish people not recognized as distinct ethnic group for these purposes. No impact identified. |
| Language (Irish) | NO | Prosecution targets criminal behavior, not language use. Coincidence that defendant uses Irish language. |
| Political Opinion | NO | Prosecution based on display of symbol, not political views. That display expressed political views is incidental. |
| National Origin | NO | Would prosecute anyone displaying proscribed symbols. That defendant is Irish is irrelevant. |
Conclusion: No equality impacts identified. Proceed with confidence.
Analysis Conducted By:
Strategic Engagement Division
Date: 07/10/2025
"We asked ourselves and we agreed"
Approved By:
Senior Strategic Committee
Date: 07/10/2025
"Consultation unnecessary when we're right"