At the Belfast City Commission in September 1976, two unnamed men who are already serving prison sentences for other offences - the 1st Accused and 2nd Accused - are accused of bombing the British Legion Hall in January 1975. This trial takes place in accordance with the modified procedures recommended by the 1972 Diplock Commission into trials of suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland: the court accepts confessions obtained under intense interrogation and the verdict is decided by a judge without a jury.

As two witnesses verify, two men - a masked man with a handgun and an unmasked man with a cardboard box containing explosives - entered the Legion Hall during a whist drive on the evening of 21 January 1975. The prosecution counsel alleges that these men are the 1st and 2nd Accused respectively. The defence counsel argues that the 2nd Accused does not match the description of a youth with dirty fair hair. The first witness, a female caretaker, contradicts this and, seemingly fearful, refuses to answer certain questions. However, the male witness states firmly that the 2nd Accused was not the man with the box. The defence counsel stresses that this testimony itself prevents the man being found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but the judge finds the timing inappropriate and the case proceeds.

Interviewed by the prosecution counsel, the Detective Sergeant testifies to confessions made by the 1st Accused in February 1975 and the 2nd Accused in April 1975. The defence counsel observes apparent contradictions and failings in this evidence, including the speed with which one of the accused changed from denying to admitting involvement, the times and numbers of interviews, confusion over which officers were present and gaps in the interview transcripts, which suggest to him that the statement was pieced together after the interviews. He uses the fact that charges were not brought until April 1976 to argue that the police were not concerned about these men, although the police attribute the delay to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Noting the defendant's insistence that he was never even asked about Legion Hall and was instead asked to confess to other crimes, the defence counsel suggests that fabrication might have taken place to clear up unsolved cases.

The 1st Accused refuses to speak, but the 2nd Accused represents himself. He reiterates that he was not asked about the Legion Hall in police interviews and that he made no confession. He claims to have been in Limerick at the time of the bombing, but has not attempted to produce witnesses, which the prosecution counsel finds unbelievable. The prosecution alleges that the 2nd Accused was cocky with, rather than frightened of, the police. Explaining why he did not call for a doctor after suffering a broken hand, the 2nd Accused explains that his previous evidence of suffering assaults in custody led him not to trust police doctors to do anything. The 2nd Accused's father notes that they could have got people to lie about knowing his son in Limerick, and affirms his son's evidence about doctors.

The defence counsel observes that he knows of no case in which the Crown has gone on to convict someone who has been negatively identified by a Crown witness, but the judge rejects the evidence of the male witness and accepts the police evidence. He sentences the 1st Accused to concurrent sentences of 8, 12 and 10 years and the 2nd Accused to 10, 12 and 10 years, an effective sentence of 12 years each.