There is no evidence for any of this, and plenty of evidence against it.

Most English convicts were repeat offenders, but small time criminals. Convicts were convicted by a judge and jury. In those days the jury were the neighbours of the accused person and they knew their characters. They would know of the charges were true or not. Juries would often convict a person but ask for the judge to show mercy, which the judge usually did. But juries showed no mercy to career criminals.

There were very few Scottish convicts and they were the worst type of criminals. Scottish laws was (and still is) different fromEnglish law. English law had over 300 offences punishable by hanging but a crime that would see you hanged in England would get you six months in prison in Scotland. When a Scottish criminal was sentenced to transportation they were usually murderers or rapists of the worst type.

Irish law was different again, but a large percentage of Irish convicts had a political element to their crimes, even if it was robbing, say, an English landlord.

Convicts from the First, Second and Third Fleets (1788-1792) came from a poverty-stricken Britain and their criminal careers were related to poverty. But most convicts (1792-1850) came from an economy that was improving and even booming, thanks to the Industrial Revolution. Factories were opening,more jobs were created, education was improving and the crime rate was going down. There were political prisoners (Irish patriots, Canadian rebels, Chartists and trade unionists) but most convicts were a bad lot who often re-offended in Australia. The worst were sent to Norfolk island or Port Arthur or even worse places.

Irish and Scottish regiments were regarded as some of the best in the British army and that without Irish and Scottish administrators and Scottish engineers the British Empire would not have existed. While some english people do have prejudices against their Celtic populations the British government did not - as long as they were loyal and law-abiding.

There are so many sources that give this information that there are too many to list. The State Library of NSW has an online list of convicts and their crimes, also see Carskens "The Colony", The Oxford Compnaion to Australian History, Clarke "Select Documents in Australian History" but don't read Robert Hughes or Tom Keneally's poorly research books.

People transported to Australia from England were mostly sentenced due to non-trumped up charges. The colonisation of Australia through the transportation of convicts rose at a time when the prosecution of crime was becoming more common, and by the turn of the 19th century, it was often seen as a public duty, with crime becoming a communal, rather than an interpersonal, affair. I need to check a book on the Scotttish side of things though.

There are some incidents of trumped up charges, however, occurring. Until the Peelers (the police force as we now know it) arrived on the scene, and before the use of police officers became widespread, particularly in areas where there were no 'rotation offices', where 'Runners' would be employed as semi-investigatory proto-police, thief takers were often the only means available for victims of a variety of crimes, from theft to assault, to find the alleged criminal. Thief takers were, by necessity, deeply involved in the British underworlds, many being criminals or former criminals themselves, employed by individuals to find criminals, where the criminals were either brought to justice or at least persuaded to bring back stolen property or perhaps settle the case out of court.^1

Their position as a mediator between victim and criminal lent them enormous power. Employed by the working and burgeoning middle class, and to a smaller extent, the upper classes, when necessary, they were, in the early 19th century and late 18th century, indispensable to the justice system, however one reason that the Runners and later police became so desired and necessary was because the thief takers were able to use this position for their own gain.

Thief takers were, largely, the only investigatory force available to a person who lived outside the reach of the very small number of rotation offices, or before widespread policing. If you could identify a suspect in all but name, or address, a thief taker would be necessary, as the watch and local magistrates were not investigatory at all. Many thief takers would be able to find stolen property or criminals through gossip and a bit of inquiry. However, some thief takers would find people fitting descriptions, or who were simply poor, foolish and with a not so good reputation, and take them. I should say this was not universal, but by the 1800s, thief takers were notoriously corrupt. Another issue was that they were largely paid on a case by case basis. Unlike police, who could expect a regular wage regardless of crime, thief takers relied on crime, and there were reports of what would today amount to entrapment, allowing thief takers to find their employee the criminal that they themselves had set up to commit a crime.

By the 1800s, this was known and commented on, with the defence even using the fact that they had been found by thief takers to discredit the prosecution. However thief takers did not operate on the basis of successful prosecutions and there was no particular bias against Irish or Scottish people by thief takers.

However, that does mean that some innocents could indeed be convicted of a crime they did not do simply due to being caught, or being convicted of a crime that they were set up to do. Some may indeed have been Irish or Scottish. However, in the early 19th century, the jury and judges were, without a doubt, largely hesitant to sentence criminals too harshly. Depsite the noted Bloody Code of the 18th century, or rather because of, juries were often hesitant to convict for certain crimes, with some cases occurring where the crimes the defendant was convicted of was lessened, for example, where a thief stole above the minimum amount that would lead to the death penalty, the charges were reduced to a smaller amount, where the punishment would be more lenient. Not all judges and juries observed this, but it was such a noted phenomenon^2 that it led to difficulties in persuading people to prosecute in the first place, due to not wanting the blood and punishment of the accused on their hands, so to speak.

The court system tended to be set up against the defendant in all other respects. In punishment, they may be given surprising leniency, with pardoning and reduction in charges and sentencing occurring frequently, but in the early to mid 19th century, juries were often biased- being frequently rushed, sometimes seeing six to twelve cases a day, and not being removed and changed for each case, returning to court regularly, being made up of the middle class in general- and this was especially seen against poorer people, who were afforded less respect and consideration, seen as less trustworthy and being paid less attention to. In the early 19th century, many of the poorest defendants still did not have lawyers or representation.^3

So, during the era of Australian transportation, it is completely conceivable that some innocents, due to a corrupt thief taking system, and a court system weighted against defendants, particularly poor defendanrs, were sentenced to transportation.

There was discrimination against the Irish in the legal system. Across the 19th century, and in the late 18th century, the Irish had a reputation and a stereotype for being drunk, rowdy, disorderly and violent. Ever heard the term 'fighting Irish'? Irishmen were seen as wifebeating drunkards who brawled outside pubs over everything, who were uneducated and backwards. In 1829, one John Fairer found guilty of stealing from his master and transported to fourteen years, was described as, upon confessing his crime to an officer, saying he hoped his master would forgive him, that the Irish had led him into it.^4 Irish people were, undoubtedly, harshly discriminated against in the world outside of the court system.^5

Within the court system, there was perhaps less obvious forms of prejudice, but nonetheless, Irish people were more likely to face biases in that they were seen as less trustworthy and someone accusing an Irish person of assault, or an Irish person arrested due to being disorderly, would be very likely to be believed. Although to some extent the burden of proof lay on the defendant in the early 19th century and late 18th century, without a doubt this burden was heavier for an Irish person in the court system. So they were more likely to be found guilty and also less likely to have lenient sentencing due to the bias, but that did not mean the charges were 'trumped up', but did mean they were more likely to be sentenced to transportation in the same situation and with the same guilt compared to an Englishman of English heritage back to the Normans. Trumped up sentencing, or de facto discrimination, certainly. It was, however, not a plan or a design to rid the British Isles of the Irish (or Scots), but discrimination in the court system did exist and should be acknowledged.^6

I would therefore say the statement is exaggerated, rather than a lie. A small minority of those who were transported may have been innocent, and of those, some may have been Irish incidentally. However all Irish people convicted outside of the Scottish or Irish legal systems did face discrimination and bias in a way that someone of English origin simply didn't, meaning they were more likely to be convicted and transported, although this was without design or planning, but due to the prejudices existing at the time.