Tara defenders triumph at Trim

by TARA SUPPORTER Mon May 18, 2009 19:31

Well done to all the defendants let this be a message to the powers that be .

STOP THE CRIMINALIZING OF DISSENT !!

Prosecute the real criminals .

Protest is our right in a democracy!

by Muireann Ni Bhrolchain Mon May 18, 2009 22:47

This went out earlier today. A press release will follow. Legally, we could not report the facts and comment at the same time.
Here are the facts - comments later.
Well done Madam K. Short, hardly sweet, but to the point.
Muireann

Press Statement – all cases of Tara protesters dismissed by Judge Coughlan
On behalf of Tara Protectors

On Monday 11th May eleven defendants charged with public order offences while protesting the M3 through the Gabhra Valley, Meath, appeared before Trim court. Three more defendants were unable to return to Ireland and their cases were heard in their absence.

Seven of the defendants had been arrested on 18th July 2007 while protesting at Blundelstown at the Hill of Tara. Others were arrested on 14th September 2007 and 26th July 2007 and 13th March 2007.

Those before the court were J.P. Fay, Robert Doherty, Hugh Mac Loughlin, Heather Buchannan, Kieran O’Carroll, Carmel Diviney, Anthony Hannigan, Muireann Ní Bhrolcháin, Kitty Kavanagh, Neil Morgan, Rik Weilich, Daniel Maloney and Daniel Moore. Most of the defendants were represented by Michael Finucane solicitor and barristers John Moher and Imelda Kelly. Others were represented by Eoin Foley of Cahir O Higgins.

The presiding judge, John Coughlan, heard the cases over a period of two days, Monday 11th and Wednesday 13th May. He dismissed all the charges in 11 cases, the charges were dropped in two cases and one case of alleged assault was dismissed on merit.

Video taken by the construction company was shown in evidence in two of the cases.

Some details on Operation Bedrock, a security operation by the Gardaí on the route of the M3, were given in court.

Information was also given on the Judicial Review taken by Michael Finucane on behalf of some defendants in an effort to gain access to all documents relating to Operation Bedrock.

For verification contact
Muireann Ní Bhrolcháin
087-9249510

by Seán Ryan Mon May 18, 2009 22:50

On the 11th of May, the District Court in Trim convened to try 14 activists for an array of alleged offences.

Tara activists had been on ice for more than 2 years at this point. Their democratic right to protest had been curtailed by strict bail conditions that forbade them to go near the controversial road site.

The very first sign that things might go bad for the State occurred when a barrister representing three defendants made a motion to have the cases against his clients struck out, as he had not received a copy of the elusive “Operation Bedrock,” that a visit to the High Court had shown was not privileged, and thus should have been furnished with other evidence in accordance with a Gary Doyle/Precis order. The judge rightly agreed and tossed the three cases.

After that we had more cases. These cases dealt with trespass (Housing – Miscellaneous Provisions Act) and various other provisions under the Public Order Act. All the State's civilian witnesses had been dismissed earlier in the morning after the State had offered proof that the firm responsible for building the controversial road were authorised and thus had the same rights and privileges as owners of the site. This evidence was oral only and no documentation was produced and neither was it asked for. Anyway, when the trespass case arose, it had to be dismissed as there was nobody present in the court to prove that the activist didn't have a right to be there.

The Public Order cases proved to be very interesting. Each case before the Court on Monday was dismissed as the Gardaí had failed to investigate as to whether anyone being charged had lawful or reasonable excuse. Offences under the Public Order Act, for the most part, specify that in order for an offence to be committed, there must not exist a reasonable or lawful excuse.

There was much shaking of heads as time and time again, Gardaí left the stand, having been shown to not have even a basic understanding of what they see as being one of their most basic duties – to ensure public order and safety. And more importantly, that they must collect all evidence, regardless as to whether it proves innocence or not.

The judge, seeming a bit perplexed that the whole week had been booked to hear these cases, closed the hearings for the day around lunch time and decided to hear the rest of the cases on Wednesday.

Ex defendants, defendants and supporters left the court in good spirits. Many were amazed that it had happened so quickly, considering that it took two years to get to the hearing stage. That said, there was not a great mood of confidence in the air for the coming Wednesday's cases. These cases were somewhat more complex and of course the State and its Garda pawns would have some time to lick their wounds and prepare arguments against the technicalities that had so far prevailed.

I'm going to deal with Wednesday's happenings in somewhat more detail, not because they are more important, but because they overtly betray the State's attitude and plan towards closing down dissent in this country. Despite Tara being a site that has importance from a global perspective, it's very telling that not a single mainstream journalist was to be seen in Court. That just adds to the truth of the picture that has, for quite a long time, been emerging. In Ireland, dissent will not be tolerated.

Before I go into the day's happenings I want to elaborate on one of the activists. I won't name him and will wait for either himself or one of the other activists to do so instead. He's earned his privacy in my book, and much much more. On Monday I'd learned that he did not have legal representation. On Wednesday I became his McKenzie Friend and we wandered into the Court without so much as a jot of paper pertaining to his case and the charges against him. Despite the fact that we could have had his case thrown out on many technicalities, he decided on a strategy of proving that he had lawful excuse. I was confident that we could prove his case but was well aware of the risk he was willing to take, as was he. This is the epitome of activism in my view. Defending himself facilitated this approach. In other words, I'm not saying that any of the other defendants isn't as honourable. I've found them all to possess much honour and guts. His was the very last case to be called and I'll get to describing it in due course.

The cases on Wednesday were similar to Monday's cases, with the exception of the assault case. However, there was more argument to be had, unlike those on Monday, which usually only took seconds once a Garda witness was turned over to the defence for cross examination.

Again the Public Order Act featured strongly, along with the Housing Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) incorporated into the Act to replace the crime of trespass. To give an idea of how desperate the State was to stop protest, allow me to outline one case in particular.

One particular lady had spent two years on bail because she had engaged in “shouting and roaring” at a protest on a building site. I kid you not. She had been charged under Section 8 of the POA (Public Order Act) – refusing to follow the orders of a Garda and the rarely used Section 5 of the POA – a lesser form of Section 6 (threatening and abusive behaviour) whereby someone must commit an offensive behaviour. The judge was left with the quandary as to whether shouting at a protest on a building site, could be considered to be legally offensive. He tossed the charges. (For all you would-be loud folk out there – you do not need to whisper about things that distress you).

Another case involved a protest with the use of a tripod, similar to the protest in Glengad last week. A garda sergeant had asked this activist to come down from the tripod and to supply his name and address. The activist complied and when he was instructed to leave the immediate vicinity, he did so. He returned later that day and was arrested by the same Garda under Section 8 of the POA. This was interesting for a number of reasons, foremost in my mind at the time was that this sergeant was the very same garda had been the person who allegedly arrested the person I was acting as a McKenzie for, on the same day and in very similar circumstances (this chap had perched himself on a digger rather than a tripod and that's the essential difference).

This particular case took about half an hour to run its course. The crunch came when the Garda having been asked to describe what he'd do today, in similar circumstances, under the provisions of Section 8, showed the Court that he had not the beginnings of a clue. A garda must describe the offence allegedly beging committed and what his or her reaction to it is. The Garda described his reaction only and thus failed in his duty. The case was tossed (and offered us another technicality if we wanted it).

By far the most compelling and most horrific case of the day was the assault case. The head honcho at the site had alleged that a female journalist/activist had kicked him in the knee. He told the court that himself and two of his underlings had been involved in preventing an activist from throwing himself under a vehicle, bound for the site. This all happened on the public road outside the site. The head honcho said that after he'd successfully prevented the activist's suicide and the gardaí had intervened to arrest the chap, he'd turned around and there was this female with either a phone or a camera in his face. And that she'd kicked him.

He refused to accept:

i.That he'd not merely turned around but had actually walked over to where this lady was in the process of filming the aftermath of a serious assault, where he'd had his hands around the throat of an activist, after she had screamed for the Gardaí to stop this assault.

ii.That he'd in fact been the one to commit an assault (“I'd never do something like that.”).

iii.That the camera (not a phone) had not been 'in his face' at any point.

This gentleman (and I use the term sarcastically) after being forced to watch the video of this incident a few times (two times in slow motion!) accepted that the lady was not immediately behind him. Other than that he stuck to his guns, despite the video showing the whole episode. The whole courtroom had given an involuntary intake of breath as the video depicted this five foot eleven, twelve stone man, aided by his two cronies, violently slam the camera (and thus the lady) with his right hand as he marched over to where she was, with a big fucking grin on his face!

The judge eventually got sick of the bullshit and tossed the case after a motion from the defence, stating the the incontrovertible evidence on the video was “self evident” and that it “spoke for itself.”

The ashen-faced judge rose at this point for lunch. The defendant, tears streaming down her vindicated face, left the courtroom. Two years on bail for this crap. I must add my own opinion at this point: the barrister did a masterful job on cross examining the head honcho. He did an absolutely miserable job on the arresting Garda. He'd allowed the Garda on the stand to say that because time might have dulled his memory, that it might have been possible that he'd not witnessed the important moments of this alleged offence. That is to say that the Garda's attention may have been taken by other ongoing things at the time. The problem here is that this particular Garda had provided a written account of what had allegedly happened and it had been given to the defence. I've read it, and in it, the Garda describes how he witnessed the defendant running up to her accuser and kicking him.

I left the court as defence for the next defendant engaged with the prosecuting Garda Superintendent about the next case.

After lunch, myself and the chap I was helping were first back into the Courtroom. We'd retired there to utilise the quietness and to prepare. The room slowly filled. I noted the absence of the State's civilian witnesses and considered it to be an important development.

Next up was the so-called 'suicidal activist.' He wasn't arrested for trying to harm himself, no not at all. He was arrested because shortly beforehand, he'd been ordered to leave the immediate vicinity of the site. Common sense would argue that even though he'd made it as far as the public road, but had been stopped and strangled by the 'gentleman' and his cronies, he'd been trying to comply with the Garda's orders. That's not how the Gardaí viewed it at the time mind you. However, the video must have had an effect. The Garda Superintendent made motion to withdraw the case. Two years later...

We were next and we were last.

The defendant stood as his name was called and introduced himself and myself. He started to make one of various applications we'd wanted to make but was interrupted by the Superintendent. “Similar application to make judge.” Case withdrawn. Both of us shook our heads in absolute disgust.

Wankers!

by Seán Ryan Tue May 19, 2009 00:07

My apologies. I have made a mistake in the above comment. Where I said:
"Another case involved a protest with the use of a tripod, similar to the protest in Glengad last week. A garda sergeant had asked this activist to come down from the tripod and to supply his name and address. The activist complied and when he was instructed to leave the immediate vicinity, he did so. He returned later that day and was arrested by the same Garda under Section 8 of the POA. This was interesting for a number of reasons, foremost in my mind at the time was that this sergeant was the very same garda had been the person who allegedly arrested the person I was acting as a McKenzie for, on the same day and in very similar circumstances (this chap had perched himself on a digger rather than a tripod and that's the essential difference).

This particular case took about half an hour to run its course. The crunch came when the Garda having been asked to describe what he'd do today, in similar circumstances, under the provisions of Section 8, showed the Court that he had not the beginnings of a clue. A garda must describe the offence allegedly being committed and what his or her reaction to it is. The Garda described his reaction only and thus failed in his duty. The case was tossed (and offered us another technicality if we wanted it)."

This should not have stated that Section 8 of the POA was what was being examined here. My apologies. It should have stated 19c of Section 24 of the Housing Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) which adds a whole new set of offences into the POA. In this particular instance we're talking about trespass.

Allow me to clarify this even more:

Section 19c (Subsection 3) states:

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reason to believe that a person is committing or has committed an offence under subsection (1) the member—

(a) may demand of the person his or her name and address,

(b) may direct the person to leave the land concerned and to remove from the land any object that belongs to the person or that is under his or her control, and

(c) shall inform the person of the nature of the offence in respect of which it is suspected that person has been involved and the statutory consequences of failing to comply with a demand or direction under this subsection.

As can be seen parts (a) and (b) are discretionary, in that they are preceded by the word "may."

However part (c) begins with "shall" and thus is mandatory. The Garda outlined that he consequences of failing to comply with his demand but he didn't inform the defendant of the nature of the offence.

Again my apologies for any confusion caused.

by Seamuseen Tue May 19, 2009 09:46

Like many, many others I imagine (all around the world), I feel extremely grateful and thankful to all involved for the these court case reports.

At the same time, I feel shocked, dismayed, and deeply concerned by the fact that I can find absolutely nothing on this extremely important subject -- which directly involves the protection of some of the most important heritage sites in the Republic of Ireland -- from ANY of our three national daily newspapers listed below, or from our State Broadcaster RTE.

Cork Examiner, Irish Independent, Irish Times, RTE, Tara Protesters Court Case, May 2009:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cork+Examiner%2C+I...earch

The "deafening silence" by all of the four organisations in question should (in my view) now become a matter of major public concern in its own right, and my hope is that one (or more) of our "elected representatives" in Dail Eireann will have what it takes to raise this issue in that particular location, and do so in a way which provides us all with truthful answers as to why our "main stream media" all appear to have very deliberately stayed away from Trim Court House last week: and done so in a manner which suggests (to me at least) that they might somehow have known in advance that none of the nine protesters in question were going to be criminalised?

by Muireann Ni Bhrolchain Tue May 19, 2009 10:24

I've said it elsewhere, it was not for the want of being told - on three different occasions. Even the local papers did not bother turning up.
The only people who showed an interest were Radio na Gaeltachta who did an interview with me on what happened. They have often been the only media to show an interest in the past.
It is of serious concern, and another concern is the cost of the constant delays for two years - the whole fiasco cost a lot of money and all because the prosecution were refusing to hand over documentation on Operation Bedrock. Documents that showed that we were to be treated properly.
I'll bet that the media will not cover the story even when hand fed the information.

by creeping jaysus Tue May 19, 2009 10:41

quite shocking - as is usual I suppose at this stage with activist related cases

by Alanna Tue May 19, 2009 11:37

In theory at least, all of the Tara protesters concerned should now be able to find a remedy for this particular aspect of the overall problem through Article 6.1 of the "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (Republic of Ireland)", which contains the following very clear statement:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME ..."

Be warned however, that requests to members of our legal profession for help with such matters, where they involve violations "by persons acting in an official capacity" (please note the contents of Article 13 of ECHR 2003 in relation to this), will, unless things have dramatically changed very recently, produce the kind of effect that holy-water is alleged (by some) to have on the devil; and, that politely or otherwise, everybody making such requests at the present time will almost certainly (to the best of my knowledge) be very rapidly "shown the door" -- in one way or another.

Article 13 of ECHR 2003 (in full) reads:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The full text of the "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (Republic of Ireland)" is available at:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0020/sch...ched1

Cannot find a lawyer in Ireland willing to discuss human rights law (involving wrongdoing by public officials):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cannot+find+a+lawy...earch

by old codger - pensioner Tue May 19, 2009 15:29

Both Tara and Shell to Sea protesters have got to accept that democracy in Ireland is non existant. To claim human rights or fair play from government will only fall on deaf ears and to seek justice in the EU takes a long time. A lot of damage will be done by the time any judgment can be made. Fianna Fail know that whatever fines or penalties that can be served on Ireland will have to be met not by them, but by the taxpayer,
Judge Coughlan must not influenced by Fianna Fail (hopefully), Judge devins on the other hand is. The top gardai are appointed by Fianna Fail and will commit crimes on their behalf. Most state bodies have been infiltrated by Fianna Fail cronies as is the bulk of the media. The greens are fully willing to help them in their crimes.
ALL PROTESTERS SHOULD DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO DISRUPT THESE CROOKS IN THEIR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
Maura Harington has been re jailed for 14 days and can expect more jail time just like Michael Davitt she will be made to suffer for her people.
And these scum call themselves the nationalist party.

by Tara Tara Tara Tue May 19, 2009 16:36

On Monday after the majority of the cases were heard, a group of 14 people and two babies in prams went to Rath Lugh to bask in the sunshine (and inspect the Crib Wall) . Check out the responce in the pics below from Security. They were seen with flashlights late into the night combing the woods long after we had gone.

On Wednesday after the remaining cases concluded, a group of 16 people gathered at Lismullin Henge with prior permission from the Landowner to mark our victory. The responce from Security that day was far more subdued with only two men sent in to take photographs of us. Could it be that they were stunned that Martin Maher, Managing Director of Siac Ferrovial on the M3 Project was proved to be, let's say- less than reliable in Court? Video evidence shown to the court proved that it was Maher who did the assaulting on not just one but two Protesters on the day in question and showed that his charge against the female protester of assault was unfounded beyond doubt.

This is the same Martin Maher who negotiated the deal with Squeek to leave the Tunnel and then broke that same agreement within hours of it being signed.

The Protester wrongfully accused of assault and labouring under that charge for the last two years was vindicated. Maher remains a thug.

by Tara Tara Tara Tue May 19, 2009 17:52

Another, hmmn, less than reliable witness was Sgt. Gahan- plain clothes in this photo.

The Barrister asked Sgt. Gahan what she was wearing and Gahan said she had arrived at the scene in a black raincoat but took it off shortly after to reveal her stab vest with the word Garda clearly marked. Dr. Ní Bhrolcain, the first protester arrested under Operation Bedrock on that day, stated in her evidence that she never saw a stab vest or any other identification and thought Gahan was a disgruntled motorist shouting at her.

This photo shows the SECOND arrest on that day some 15 minutes after Dr. Ní Bhrolcain's and Gahan is STILL wearing the black raincoat and is still unmarked.

Sgt. Gahan also had to concede that Dr. Ní Bhrolcain was not obstructing traffic, inciting other protesters or roaring and shouting as was alleged in her precis of evidence after video footage taken by the construction company was shown to the court. All charges against Dr. Ní Bhrolcain were dismissed.

Unfortunately for legal reasons we cannot show any video footage here that was used in court.

Carmel Ní Dhuibheanaigh's arrest

by court support Tue May 19, 2009 18:15

Not since the last catholic workers trial have i witnessed such drama in a court room.The sence that justice would be done and be seen to be done was exciting as it was refreshing.Judge Coughlan has given me hope in our justice system .

by Mise Tara 7 Tue May 19, 2009 18:49

(as appears on SIAC website)

Our Values

SIAC has a long heritage of being a company that promotes and lives by strong values; values that are defined and promoted throughout the company. Since its inception in 1913, SIAC has always performed with integrity and values.

HA!

by Carmel Diviney Tue May 19, 2009 18:50

Hi Court Support,

Judge John Coughlan did his job with utter integrity and was very fair to both sides, so I share your sense of hope. Our legal team led by Michael Finucane Solicitor, were excellent and we cannot thank them enough for all the hard work and dedication they put in over the last two years.

I just want to say heartfelt thanks to to them and to everyone who gave such great support along the way. It is wonderful to be free of charges and bail conditions after being dragged through the courts like criminals all that time. We were arrested under Operation Bedrock at Soldier's Hill on the very day that the EU deemed the works to be illegal as Ireland had not complied with the Environmental Impact Assessments. We were there that day trying to prevent a crime against Tara and Ireland by our own Government. This country now faces heavy fines estimated at approx €50million for breaking EU Law.

The real criminals are still out there.

by curious Tue May 19, 2009 19:38

What legal reason is there for not showing video used in court?

by Oisín Tue May 19, 2009 20:00

At the present time it really does look as though "persons acting in an official capacity" can violate human rights law in the Republic of Ireland, and easily get away with it: again, and again, and again.

However, I'm wondering if they will always be able to do so?

It seems to me that it might only be a question of time until someone has some court room success in connection with the statement "Anyone who suffers injury, loss or damage as a result such a body's failure to do this is entitled to damages" (please see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Hum..._2003 ).

In addition, there's the statement about providing "victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a RECURRENCE of violations" -- which is mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impunity -- and which involves impunity: a very serious crime under international law that sits on top of the original crime, compounds it, and really "rubs salt into the wounds" of the victims.

Only time of course will tell how much longer our "public servants" will be allowed to get away with their criminal abuse; but, much may depend on how quickly the citizens of the Republic of Ireland get to know about the protections that human rights law has to offer: if only our lawyers were willing to help us have it responsibly enforced, instead of "sweeping it beneath the rug" and acting as if it does not even exist.

Ultimately, our legal profession needs to decide if it wishes to keep on supporting impunity, in the way that it is (i.e. by turning a blind eye to it), or, to crush it for once and for all -- using the human rights law which is already in place, and all ready to be put to good use.