This thesis is a critique of the law's response to the violence perpetrated by Irish republicans on the British mainland during the Northern Irish conflict. The research is undertaken from within the public law paradigm, and takes account of the inadequacies of explanations of political violence from across the academic spectrum, sociological, criminological, and jurisprudential. Generally research into punishment has taken one of two forms: either the empirical work of criminologists or the theoretical work of philosophers. This thesis is unique in that the law is used to posit the central argument. By analysing the text of legal judgments relating to punishment in general and the punishment of Irish republicans in particular the central thesis, the inability of the law to comprehend and consequently respond appropriately to political violence, is made. In turn, wider and more general points, such as the confusion that currently exists in regard to penal policy, are made. The work is broadly divided into two: in the fIrst part, after a general introduction to academic accounts of punishment the sentencing oflrish republicans is examined. In the second part we move to the prison, where the focus is the place of Irish republicans in both the estate itself and prison law. This also reflects the unique quality of the work, as the traditional approach of public lawyers to the issue of political violence, or 'terrorism', has been to focus on the earlier, interrogatory stage of the criminal justice process. In summary, via an exegesis of the law, the position oflrish republicans in the criminal justice system is used as exemplifIcation ofthat law's inability to fully address political violence.