Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paul Murphy TD outside court following the vertdict in the Jobstown trial.
Photograph: David Dunne
The acquittal of six men accused of falsely imprisoning
Joan Burton and her assistant brings to an end one of
the most surreal legal spectacles of recent years. Surreal
not because the trial took place. That decision was taken
by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a
scrupulously independent and respected institution, and
the claim by supporters of the defendants that the
charges were a politically-motivated attempt to stifle
protest should be treated with the derision it deserves.
What made the trial surreal, not to say disturbing, was
how so many of the conventions that have developed
around jury trials were flagrantly ignored.
These ground rules are there for a reason:
to ensure the integrity of the jury trial, a
centrepiece of our justice system
Public commentary on ongoing trials is heavily
circumscribed. The media reports only what the jury can
see and hear. Until a trial concludes, a veil is drawn over
legal argument that takes place in the jurors absence,
and care is taken not to comment in a way that would
influence the jury. These ground rules are there for a
reason: to ensure the integrity of the jury trial, a
centrepiece of our justice system. Those who breach
them can find themselves in contempt of court.
Jobstown trial a sledgehammer to crack this particular nut
Jobstown protest: What happened on the day
DPP warned TD about his tweets during Jobstown trial
Activists systematically used social media
to criticise and impugn the motives of
those who gave evidence
In the so-called Jobstown trial, in which Solidarity TD
Paul Murphy and five others were found not guilty of
charges arising from an incident in Tallaght in 2014, the
normal rules apparently no longer applied. Campaigners
produced partisan running commentary on the trial.
Activists systematically used social media to criticise and
impugn the motives of those who gave evidence.
Advances in technology have long put strain on the jury
trial. We were always asking a lot of jurors by expecting
that they cloister themselves away for the duration of
their service. In the age of Google, Facebook and Twitter,
when everyone is a publisher and information is more
accessible than ever, that expectation has become
increasingly untenable. But the Jobstown trial
highlighted the challenge more sharply.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/jobstown-acquittals-jury-trials-under-strain-
1.3138118
The dpp Liz Howlin is very close friends with the times editor, they are neighbours in Blackrock, the times is
the only media allowed to the dpp
SS Fascist Capitalist DPP Serous Need For Change And Countability
Look everyone: these people are but the tip of a very large pyramid of corruption that stinks to high Heaven
and this same Pyramid is in existence since the foundation of this State. Believe me, there is nothing new
regarding jobbery and corruption in the highest places in Ireland: in fact, the higher up one goes, the more
offensive the stench of corruption.
The Jobstown trial and the
social (media) justice
warriors
Its against the law, but we felt there is a political nature to
this trial so wed do it anyway
about 9 hours ago
Colm Keena
AGSI members will call for it to be made illegal to photograph or video a garda
member in the course of their duty without that member's consent and then
post this image on any media.
The issue has been raised in the past regarding the policing of water protests
and other demonstrations.
Images videos of garda have been posted to social media, identifying those
members. The motion has been proposed by garda in West Dubin and is set
to be discussed at the annual AGSI conference.
A spokesman said: "The Tanaiste very much regrets that, because the pressure
of Dail business this week relating, in particular, to Garda matters, she will not
be in a postion to attend the AGSI conference, which she had very much
hoped to attend."
"Their private domestic lives, home addresses and members of family have
been referred to in a way not connected to the duty of which that member was
carrying out.
"There is a risk attached to that. They want to fully protect their private life
doing their duty. They feel it is justifiable.
Separately delegates from Sligo/Leitrim are calling for the Justice Minister to
introduce legislation making it obligatory for all pedestrians and cyclists to be
forced to wear hi-visibility clothing.
AGSI members from Dublin's south inner city say that while they do not want
pedestrians to be forced to wear hi-vis clothing they do think bicycle helmets
should become obligatory for cyclists.
Another motion that may cause debate is one introduced by members for
Laois/Offaly. Sergeants and Inspectors from that division are calling on the
Garda Commissioner to "provide suitable training" to "assist the member" in
their dealings with local and national media in the course of their duty.
Meanwhile, three out of five farmers have accused the Government of under-
investing in rural policing, according to a poll.
But public opinion is split on whether sufficient money is being set aside for
policing of the nation's roads.
The survey was carried out among a sample of a thousand people by Red C on
behalf of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI).
The results of the poll will be officially announced this evening in Killarney at
the opening of the association's annual conference.
According to the association, 55pc of those surveyed believe the Garda should
have the right to strike, while there was 81pc support for allowing garda to
negotiate their own pay and conditions.
The survey was carried out between March 20 and 23, before the latest
controversies erupted over false breath test figures and wrongful prosecutions
in court for road traffic offences.
The results of the survey show that 77pc took the view that the planned
withdrawal of labour last November had either a positive impact or no impact
at all on public opinion of the force.
"Association members are very cognisant of, and value, the views of the
citizens of this State," Ms Cunningham said.
"We felt we had anecdotal evidence of how the public felt towards us, but we
wanted to get independent and expert research undertaken to establish the
facts."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-want-ban-on-people-
photographing-and-recording-them-on-duty-35609002.html
Widespread abuse' of
Garda phone powers,
claims whistleblower
The officer has claimed that tens of thousands of phone records were
"unlawfully obtained" and that over a period of years retired garda routinely
accessed people's records without proper authorisation.
The TLU is tasked with approving applications for phone calls and text
messages to be traced as part of Garda investigations.
Retired members of the force would routinely obtain phone records without
authorisation.
Widespread concern was raised as to why clerical officers and clerks were
submitting applications in the name of superintendents.
For years, there was no written procedure in place despite the sensitivity of
the work carried out by the TLU.
The whistleblower is a serving middle ranking officer who is currently on
suspension from the force for unrelated matters.
The officer in question has now written to the Garda Ombudsman and the
Charleton Tribunal seeking that her allegations of her unlawful phone traces
are investigated.
The officer also told Judge Peter Charleton that repeated confidential reports
were sent to the force's Confidential Recipient but were ignored.
The whistleblower has also come out in support of a retired officer who said he
was put under major pressure to routinely bypass strict protocols to listen in
on private conversations for almost a decade.
Court documents reveal how the first officer, who was based in the monitoring
section in Garda Headquarters, was "bullied" and "vilified" after repeatedly
raising his concerns that some of the practice was illegal.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/widespread-abuse-of-garda-phone-
powers-claims-whistleblower-35880363.html
On June 29th 2017, the verdict was delivered in the Jobstown Trial:
Not Guilty.
Much has been written about the case, and a key element has been
the role of social media.
On Twitter, over the past year, over 89,000 tweets have been
published featuring the official campaign hashtag:
#JobstownNotGuilty.http://olytico.com/jobstownnotguilty-
analysis-89000-tweets/
An excellent video by the people of jobs town, proud to support you all last week as I grew up in Tallaght.what
you all did to show our democratic right to protest is supported by a large swathe of the population. By
ignoring the will of the people on water charges this week they have just hastened their own demise as a
mass movement is about to end civil war politics.
Shocking. 19 people on trial for potential lengthy sentences for peaceful protests. 2 & 1/2 hour delay for Joan
= months/years in prison for the people who upset her schedule!
https://www.facebook.com/4108422
95955573/videos/410878139285322/
What did people talk about?
This word cloud represents the Top 100 words used in the
89,000 tweets analysed.
Newstalk Drive
@NewstalkDrive
Coming up on @NewstalkFM: #JobstownNotGuilty
verdict; @paulmurphy_TD speaks to us and @bridsmith
on abortion rights
4:33 PM - 29 Jun 2017
5 5 Retweets 2 2 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
National politicians
Follow
Cllr. Enda Fanning
@EFFanning
As the #JobstownNotGuilty verdicts sink in please
remember a few years ago, without any Smartphones,
they would all be in prison tonight.
9:48 PM - 29 Jun 2017
64 64 Retweets 116 116 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Sports stars
View image on Twitter
Follow
Paddy Holohan
@PaddyHolohanMMA
Musicians
Follow
JamesVincentMcMorrow
@jamesvmcmorrow
how much did this trial cost Ireland? what a shit show.
Spend our money on the helpless, not on vindictive
nonsense #JobstownNotGuilty
2:32 PM - 29 Jun 2017 Dublin City, Ireland
6 6 Retweets 24 24 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Comedians
Follow
Rubber Bandits
@Rubberbandits
#JobstownNotGuilty it's official. Now piss off Labour.
You've dissapointed Connolly and Larkin. Sort yere shit
out
12:38 PM - 29 Jun 2017
527 527 Retweets 1,341 1,341 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
@yanisvaroufakis
A documentary on the #JobstownNotGuilty defendants is
now available here. Plus a primer into what the stakes are:
https://
tinyurl.com/m46hwl9
As news came through of the court verdict, Mr Barry congratulated the six
defendants who were all acquitted of the false imprisonment of former Labour
leader and then-Tnaiste Joan Burton and her adviser, Karen O'Connell,
during anti-water charges protests in Tallaght in November 2014.
Mr Barry, a TD for Cork North-Central, said the verdict was "a stunning defeat
for the political establishment".
He said the political elite wanted "to create a powerful chill factor" to stop
protests, as he warmly praised his party colleagues.
Mr Barry went on to describe Ms Burton as the "star witness for the State". He
also castigated the Labour Party, claiming it had engaged in "a shabby attempt
to frame socialists for standing up for their communities".
Mr Barry also told the Dil more than 10m was to be spent on trying to prove
that the Jobstown group was guilty. "Let's save money here. Let's be prudent.
Let's drop all remaining charges," he said.
Fine Gael TD Bernard Durkan intervened to say "the House cannot instruct
the courts".
The Ceann Comhairle Sen Fearghal supported this view, saying "there's
nobody instructing anyone here".
Ms Fitzgerald insisted it was not the practice of parliament, and the Dil
should not rerun the evidence. "We respect the court decision of course. This
was a jury trial. The jury makes it decision and justice takes it course," she
said.
advertisement
Advertisement 00:20
The Tnaiste added that an appeal could not be ruled out so it was not
appropriate for the Government to make comments on the case at this point.
Mr Barry alleged that the Government used the Jobstown case in an "attempt
to gain revenge against those of us on the left who have defeated you on the
issue of water charges".
"The left is on the front foot now," Mr Barry told the Dil.
The Labour Party said the investigation and prosecution of any criminal
matter was decided by An Garda Sochna and the law officers of the State
who operate independently
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fitzgerald-denies-that-
government-had-any-political-agenda-in-the-trial-35880325.html
it was a political agenda and gardai who lied should be brought to account. minister burton
was free to move from garda car to garda car so was never actually stopped from moving
about . the gardai present were totally incompetent and gave in to their own ineptitude. no
gardai were physically assaulted to any extent and they could have cleared a peaceful
demonstration earlier by keeping burton under lock and key until crowd dispersed.
the govt have tried to use this case as traction to put fear into the people but it failed . watch
out for refuse protests now , another cosy cartel that expect the punters to pay for govt failure
to stop the incinerator ( which is totally unviable ) going ahead .
we are paying upwards of 15% of paye income to shore up inefficient water , electric
windmill companies , bord gais etc .
is there anyone outside the jobstown crew fighting for joe public as regulators / govt
parties of fianna fail and finegael ( real coalition) are grossly inept or in corporate pockets
Capitalism irish style though was to hand over tax payers monies to private banking /
developer institutions and sell the assets of the country at rock bottom value to vulture funds
... bankers / capitalusts never run out of loosing others people's money.
Had those behind the prosecution of six people charged with the false
imprisonment of former Labour Party leader and tnaiste Joan Burton
at an anti-water charges protest in Dublin three years ago anticipated
yesterdays verdict, that prosecution might never have gone ahead.
It seemed ill-advised and politically motivated from the beginning,
though that charge would inevitably be rejected by Ms Burton and her
team.
Despite that rejection, her credibility has been damaged, as has that of
the garda whose evidence in support of the prosecution was rejected
by the jury.
As the action seemed politically motivated, it is only fair to suggest that
the result the acquital of all six men will inevitably be used to fuel
the political campaign against water charges.
Be that as it may, that deeply divisive project has yet to explain in a way
that makes sense, how we are to pay for the kind of water supply this
country so badly needs.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/water-protest-case-
action-ill-advised-453712.html
Jobstown trial: Convictions not a shoe in for
terrified Joan Burton
Friday, June 30, 2017
Isabel Hayes
As six men were found not guilty of falsely imprisoning former tnaiste
Joan Burton and her adviser at a water charges protest, Isabel Hayes
looks at how the arguments played out.
Nine weeks after the Jobstown protest trial opened in Dublin Circuit
Criminal Court it took a jury just three hours and 10 minutes to return
unanimous verdicts of not guilty.
Six men, including Solidarity TD Paul Murphy, had been on trial since
April 26, charged with falsely imprisoning the then tnaiste Joan Burton
and her adviser for three hours during a water charges protest in
Jobstown.
Paul Murphy, South Dublin County Councillors Michael Murphy and
Kieran Mahon, Scott Masterson, Frank Donaghy, and Michael Banks,
had all pleaded not guilty to falsely imprisoning Ms Burton and Karen
OConnell by restricting their personal liberty without their consent at
Fortunestown Road, Jobstown, Tallaght on November 15, 2014. The
charge comes with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The charges against a seventh accused, Ken Purcell, were dropped at
the conclusion of the prosecution case after Judge Melanie Greally ruled
that the extension of his garda detention in February 2015 was unlawful.
During the trial, the prosecution argued the men were plainly involved
in the restriction of liberty of the two women, who were trapped in
Garda cars for three hours after they left a graduation ceremony at
Jobstown.
Follow
jonathan @Earl1995Lfc
Garda helicopter video from the Jobstown protest
9:33 PM - 3 May 2017
261 261 Retweets 209 209 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The trial heard that when Ms Burton attended the church ceremony
that day, eggs and water balloons where thrown at her. She was
advised by garda to leave in an unmarked Garda car in order to avoid
the crowd.
However, their car was immediately surrounded by protesters, including
the accused men, and they were unable to leave the church yard.
At one point garda moved in and unsuccessfully tried to remove the
accused men, pulling off Paul Murphys top in the process. Ms Burton
and Ms OConnell remained in that car for about an hour before a
decision was made to move them to a Garda jeep.
The trial was told that a police cordon set up to protect the women as
they made their way to the jeep was immediately broken up by
protesters, many of whom were screaming abuse.
The jeep was also then surrounded and moved inch by inch along
Fortunestown Road over the next two hours before the women ran to
waiting Garda cars and left the area.
The Public Order Unit was called in and several garda described how
they feared for the safety of the tnaiste and their colleagues during the
protest. They said the crowd was abusive and hurling missiles
including sticks and lighters.
The prosecution submitted that by surrounding the cars containing Ms
Burton and Ms OConnell, the six men worked together with a shared
intention to totally restrict their liberty.
Joan Burton and Karen OConnell were trapped, Sean Gillane SC,
prosecuting, told the jury in his closing address last week.
Their liberty was not just restrained, it was totally restrained. Their
liberty was never in truth restored until they were running down that
road coming up to 4 oclock that afternoon.
The jury was told 11 people have yet to stand trial in relation to alleged
violent incidents at the protest that day.
Defence case
Defence counsel argued that it was this fear of violence that led to the
women being kept in the vehicle by garda, not the peaceful acts carried
out by the accused men. Some defence counsel were highly critical of
garda, who they said were unprepared for the protest and made unwise
tactical decisions.
They submitted there was something rotten at the core of this
investigation because evidence given by garda was proved
demonstrably wrong in court by video footage.
Extensive video footage of the protest was repeatedly played
throughout the trial. They came from sources including videos uploaded
by protesters present on the day, RT footage and clips from the Garda
air support unit.
In her closing charge to the jury, Judge Melanie Greally said that on a
number of instances, there was garda testimony describing events that
were not borne out by the footage.
As a result, she said they should regard the video footage from that day
as the primary and most reliable evidence, as it was not subject to the
frailties of human memory.
The defence argued that at worst, their clients were involved in
obstructing a vehicle, or delaying and inconveniencing the women a
legitimate feature of peaceful protest as recognised by the European
courts.
They argued the DPP had a range of charges open to her under the
Public Order Act and that she had not chosen a charge that could be
proved.
The defence asserted the case was politically motivated and that it was
an attempt on the part of the political establishment to assert itself in
the face of the successful campaign against water charges.
Follow
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/jobstown-
trial-convictions-not-a-shoe-in-for-terrified-joan-burton-
453717.html
Garda corruption again, and again, and again, when is it going to stop.
Bruton and An Garda should face charges of false imprisonment, defamation of character and perjury for
lying in order to force the sentencing of innocent people.
The Irish Times
16th September 2015
Dear Sir,
The GRA reject the idea that the arrests and charging of Paul Murphy TD and other Anit Austerity Alliance members
who protested the Labour leader at Jobstown. According to P J Stone, large numbers of Gardai were necessary for the
early morning arrests since although Paul Murphy is a TD , he might own a dog capable of biting. (September 11th)
Anybody who believes that the arrests and potential show trial is anything but a Labour party/Fine Gael initiative is
ignoring the reality of political policing over the past decades. Whatever, claims are made for the neutrality of the Gardai,
the DPP and AG cannot be sustained in the light of the one law for the rich and one law for the rest history of this state.
The Beef Tribunal revealed massive tax evasion, the defrauding of the EU subsidy regime and abuse of export credit
insurance. Former Minister for Justice, Michael Mc Dowell asked in the Dail debate in 1994: Will any of the top brass
in the Goodman organisation darken the District Court door ?. Will any of them spend a night in jail and hang their
Armani suits on the back of the cell door in Mountjoy. They will not. Not a single person will be brought to account for
the most substantial and highly organised tax evasion in this country.
No Garda investigation of the facts revealed by the Moriarty Tribunal. Denis O Brien, identified by Judge Moriarty
following his lengthy investigation as making corrupt payments must have two dogs.
No Garda investigation of the politicians who stated that their unaccounted for funds were won on the horses, no early
morning arrests of the Ansbacher gang. No one arrested for non payment of due taxes prior to three tax amnesties
provided to the guilty by Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour.
It is clear to any PAYE taxpayer that no action was taken in the case of the Beef Tribunal because Fianna Fail in
government would not allow it, that no action is taken following the Moriarty Tribunal; by this government because Fine
Gael will not allow it.
It should be clear that the arrests and charges of the Jobstown protestors could not have happened if the Labour Party in
government were opposed to these decisions. The decision to arrest and charge the Jobstown protestors with a view to a
show trial is precisely because Labour are in government.
Yours sincerely
Emmett Farrell, 97 New Ireland Road, Dublin 8 (087) 4174124. Member of the Socialist Party
Come to our rally to demand the drop of the rest of the charges this Saturday!
This is footage taken from a Garda helicopter the day of the protest. Here it quite definitively contradicts the
mainstream narrative of the Jobstown protest. The Public Order Unit escalated issues. The protest was peaceful - there
was, in the words of this Garda pilot, "no hassle".
Don't hold your breath waiting for this to appear on the Six One News.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/J
obstownNotGuilty/posts/
Here is the statement that was read out
by Mick Banks on the steps of the court
after the Not Guilty
June 29th 2017 on Thursday
https://www.facebook.com/pg/JobstownNotGuilty/posts/
https://www.facebook.com/pg/JobstownNotGuilty/posts/
Who's blocking the doors of the Toyota Avensis ? Definitely not the people who are in the
dock tomorrow waiting for the verdict on trumped up charges of false imprisonment. crime
with a possible sentence of life imprisonment.
Frank Donaghy's barrister gives closing statement;
There's a lot of talk about power in this trial. Political power, people power, legal power. But
the most important power today is your power to go back into a room and come out and
deliver your verdict - guilty or not guilty. You answer to no one, you walk away. This is
cherished. You represent the people. It's your decision to say - "Do the facts fit in the law?".
This is the first time criminal law has been applied to a political protest. Most of the time, Mr
Frank Donaghy is carrying a banner. The vital peace of evidence put forward is him holding a banner.
This case, if any case against him should have been raised, should have been dealt with in an hour in
the District court. The first time Frank Donaghy knew that he was being accused of doing anything
wrong was 3 months later when they came to arrest him.
The case against him includes walking down the road holding a We Wont Pay banner. The prosecution
are not stupid - this is calculated. The prosecution and their case is presenting a continuum of false
imprisonment, they consciously want you to include slow marching as false imprisonment.
They could have left the slow march out of the false imprisonment. It's a scary decision you have to
make - they are asking you to constitute holding a banner as false imprisonment. It's an affront to
democracy to equate this to false imprisonment, as it is the essence of peaceful protest. It is ludicrous to
call it false imprisonment. The evidence that Frank banged the back of the car has been blown out of
the water by the video evidence. We could see from footage he drummed "No way, we wont pay".
This was political. This was a nuisance to the people in the car. The camera in the car shows their state
of mind, and what they were saying about the protesters. A layer of arrogance and double standards by
the witnesses. Karen O'Connell thought her protests were legitimate but that others weren't. Miss
Burton showed disconnect. Part of the elite, she said she was "Privileged to represent the people", but
doesn't want to hear the anger. She didn't want to hear the anger of the women shouting. She said she
only heard the bad language, not the anger. That is the disconnect and arrogance.
Do we really want to be known as the country in Europe that equates sit down protest, slow marching,
or holding a banner to false imprisonment, which carries a life sentence? You can end that now by
delivering a not guilty. Guilty would be contrary to democracy and liberty. This is a disgrace that he
has been dragged through this system. He is entitled to enjoy his retirement and - if he wants - to join a
protest freely without risk of life imprisonment.
Scott Masterson was handcuffed. Why? What was he going to do - stab himself with the
butter knife? Or grab kids' lunch boxes and live off the cheese strings while on the run?
Frank Donaghy's barrister closing statements next.
Closing statement from Scott Masterson's barrister continued;
The criticism of Garda Sochana is a little bit more sinister in the way Scott was treated. It
was not necessary. It was frightening for Scott and his children. Scott Masterson was making
lunch for his 4 and 9 year olds, then.
The Garda in cross examination took a long time to admit there was other ways to get Scott
Masterson to engage and help with inquiry. He admitted it is often done that people will get a
phone call and come voluntarily. There is a big difference between this and an arrest. With the arrest it
maybe very difficult to locate your solicitor and have a calm discussion. But the discrimination didn't
end there. He was handcuffed in front of his 4 year old. The Garda had only admitted that 5 men were
there, and no female Garda.
You could think Scott was lying, as Garda Rooney had stuck to the mantra "No female Garda". He had
to be recalled to the stand, and in second cross examination - low and behold! - there was female Garda
there, and Scott was hancuffed. Why? It was heavy handed. It was an abuse of power. Mr Masterson
was threatened unjustifiably as a violent criminal. Is it a pattern, is it all over the top, all heavy handed,
is it why we are all here today. Is it cracking a nut with a sledge hammer?
More updates as they come
from Scott Masterson's barrister;
Says there is so much video footage she would nearly be tempted to just sit down and say
there you have it, just watch the video.
Says there are 2 issues she will take issue with - the idea that Scott struck the car with his
open palm, and a Garda officer's conduct at the time of arrest.
The main question that the jury have to deal with is - what was his intention when he went to Jobstown
- was it to commit crime of false imprisonment? Clearly not
He didn't turn up in Jobstown with anything looking to cause trouble. He turned up fr a protest.But the
prosecution want you to believe that he turned up intending to commit a crime, and then organised with
others to commit this crime.
Scott Masterson did have an intention when he went to Jobstown that was to take part in a peaceful
sitdown protest, which is legitimate as his right.
Barrister for Scott Masterson says that the claim made by Sergeant Phelan that Scott hit the car is not
backed up by one garda witness or one piece of video evidence because it didn't happen.
The only facts is the actual video footage showing scott and the co accused having a peaceful sitdown protest
then him and the rest being aggresivly man handled by the bullying heavy handed police, which left alot of
bruising...
Counsel for Kieran Mahon speaking now:
The core part of the jury's oath is that they promise to return a true verdict according to the
evidence.
The truth about Kieran is that he's not a criminal, he's a political activist. Certainly, a political
protester, but not a criminal. I want to show you what the prosecution is attempting to do and
how far removed from normal legal practice it is. Unprecedented.
No jury has ever been asked to convict someone of false imprisonment when they engaged in peaceful
protest, with no violence and encouraging no violence. If he's to be convicted, it should be obvious to
you from looking at the TV that his behaviour is very extreme.
False imprisonment is used to put on trial the likes of tiger kidnappers, to prosecute people who abduct
children, tie people up in their home and abuse them over many hours and days. The less serious end of
scale would be on a robbery of a shop where the shopkeeper is tied up in the back.
It's technically possible for false imprisonment to be committed without force, bit that's not what's
alleged to have happened here. I'm not saying whether anyone else is guilty, but others are charged
with both false imprisonment and violent disorder, which means that at least three people are alleged to
have used or threatened to use unlawful violence in a manner that caused someone fear.
Kieran isn't being charged with violent disorder and it isn't suggested by anyone that he's guilty of, or
had any hand, act or part in violence or the promotion of violence by anyone else!
The essential point is that if convicted, the judiciary imposes the view that peaceful protest and civil disobedience carries
the same penalties as violent protest in spite of the constitutional right to peaceful protest. If this happens, the next round
of protest will be violent - a bad development. This to my mind at least is the importance of this trial. There have already
been Whiteboy type protest against Irish Water if you recall the arson attacks, and this may well be the future of political
protest if these are convicted. I await the conclusion of the trial with trepidation.
Garda Whelan gave the impression that Mick's sanctuary comment was a "direct threat" to
the Tnaiste - could anything be further from the truth?!
Mick was saying she'd be safe in the church, not threatening her but this was portrayed as in
some way blackening his character and his intent on the day - if they didn't have YouTube
with sound evidence of what he really said where, would we be?
Not only was Mick not encouraging violence be actually took steps to restrain people - he
pulled people back from the guards at the jeep.
Yet all this is portrayed as evidence of intent of false imprisonment on his part, and he is portrayed as
an organiser of it, that's an inversion of the English language that holds no logical sense whatsoever.
Maguire recognised Paul Murphy when arrived, why did he not engage with him at that stage? Sgt
Boland said that the Garda police by consent, and that dialogue is crucially important, and this is
drummed into you when you're in training. Why on earth didn't Inspector Maguire engage with Paul
Murphy when things were quiet? The only time he did was when things flared up again, in an attempt
to defuse it.
Temperatures flared rapidly after the Garda tried to forcibly move protesters from the car. Wasn't that
the foundation event for what happened after? That was the root cause of what happened that day, and
that has to be laid at the door of the Garda.
It's alleged that Mick Murphy together with others was engaged in a joint enterprise to imprison
Burton, it stretches credulity to say that when he was doing everything he could to calm things down.
There is something that leaves one with a very uneasy, a very distasteful feeling about evidence that
was demonstrably incorrect and wrong.
Mick Murphy is entitled to fairness like every citizen, and that can be vindicated in this court by a
verdict of not guilty!
Final words from Paul Murphy's defence;
Why have you spent six weeks hearing this case against Paul Murphy? Paul Murphy is not
being prosecuted for what he did or what he said on the day, but for who he is, what he
believes and what he represents. A public representative elected by the people to campaign
on issues.
What distinguished him from everyone else who was there that day? His words and actions
on the day? Or is the only thing which truly distinguished him the fact that he's a public
representative elected to oppose water charges, and this is being used to discredit him, the campaign he
leads and the people he represents?
At stake is our freedom to hold our elected representatives to account, our right as a people to expect
that promises will be honoured, this is a case in which you are being asked to fix a limit to our political
rights. I ask you to defend the right to peaceful protest and say he is Not Guilty of the offence charged.
Absolute circus jokeshop purposely set up to demonise and discredit the People Of Irelands democratic right
to Peaceful Protest #LabourGuilty #JobstownInnocent
Defence closing statements continued. This is Paul Murphy's barrister;
Garda Cooke's statement was that Paul Murphy was directing people where to stand using
the megaphone, and he testified this under oath in District Court in a separate case. Here, he
didn't say that, and instead said Paul was "doing different things".
The defence goes on, saying that what Garda Cooke said we KNOW from the footage
shown in court to be untrue - so what does that tell us about the whole Garda evidence in this
case?
The Garda wanted to push aside the protest and impose their will on the situation - the right to protest
is protected by the constitution and European human right law, did the guards recognise people had a
right to protest, a right which they had a duty to protect? Instead of being seen as engaged in peaceful
political protest, the people of Jobstown were seen as an obstacle to be pushed aside.
There has been repeated emphasis on the fact that Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell spent so long in
the car. Could the real explanation be that the Garda had inadequate resources to police the event and
that, realising they hadn't the numbers, they hastily launched into an unwise course of action and left
the women in the car?
Inspector Maguire says he kept Burton and O'Connell in the car out of fear for their personal safety,
which can't have anything to do with what Paul Murphy did or said on the day. Sit down protests are a
disruptive form of protest, not an act of imprisonment.
The Garda eventually tried to achieve by force what they couldn't through negotiation, and they used
that force in an inept way - stripping Paul Murphy of his clothes, leaving him sitting there on a cold
November day. It was Paul Murphy's response that was restrained, appropriate and peaceful - he does
not respond in any other way and that characterised his whole behaviour on that day.
What prosecution doesn't tell you is that within minutes of Burton getting into the jeep, Paul Murphy is
advocating a slow march. It's inconvenient, it's obstruction, it's delay - but it is NOT imprisonment. He
wanted a slow, dignified political protest to take place.
More to come.
Another update, this time the closing statement from the Defence!
Burton said repeatedly that "we live in a democracy", Zappone said she drew a distinction
between the self-satisfied language in Leinster House and the suffering of ordinary people.
"It's up to you decide if Burton invoking democracy was part of that self satisfied discourse or
if it has any meaning". The context of the Jobstown protest was a loss of confidence in
"democracy", the same as has happened internationally since austerity and the crash, where
people all around the world are rejecting established politicians and the political system itself.
The economists' language of austerity gives impression that what we have endured is just a "tightening
of our belts" but what the poor and the working poor including in Jobstown have suffered is more
properly described as a biblical form of "affliction".
The defence then reminds the jury about the Labour Party's election manifesto and its promise not to
introduce water charges, the infamous 'every little hurts' Tesco ad and Gilmore's promise of "Labour's
way, not Frankfurt's way". Eamonn Gilmore described the Tesco ad as "a decisive communications
intervention", but those who wrote it didn't pay any attention to the specific promises in it, they literally
didn't know or care and failed to prevent any of those measures from being implemented, they
abandoned them all during the negotiations for the Programme for Government in which Burton was a
leading member. This speaks of "a deep pool of corrosive cynicism".
The defence then goes on to say that the Jobtown protest was a spontaneous protest, which means no
one was directing it. There's been an attempt by the Garda to impose on a spontaneous event a
particular legal perspective that isn't justified. That's why Garda Cooke tried to say Paul was directing
people when it was seen on video that he wasn't. What's clear is that there's also a "very obvious want
of any evidence" that Paul Murphy was detaining anyone, as opposed to obstructing a vehicle.
It's also important, the defence says, to distinguish between an unruly and disorganised protest and a
violent protest... it was only the Garda's fear of violence that kept Burton in the car/jeep and it's only
violence, which defendants were not involved in, that could be the basis of any charge of false
imprisonment.
It's also wrong to say that Joan Burton's visit wasn't political, Zappone was being considered as a
Labour Party candidate - Burton avoided admitting this on stand, but Zappone when asked said straight
away that Burton had asked her to be an election candidate. Joan Burton was there partly to ingratiate
herself with someone they wanted to run as a candidate in the general election, says the defence.
Court goes to break. More when things continue!
the Prosecution's closing arguments!
Firstly, the prosecution is claiming that the essential question the jury is being asked to
decide is "not political" - they then go on to praise Joan Burton as having "lived an adult life
committed to public service"!
Paul Murphy is then described by the prosecution as "relatively dramatically sitting down" in
front of the Garda jeep - how does one dramatically sit down, and relative to what? They then
go on to describe the democratic vote held by the Jobstown protesters as not "a meeting like that in
a literary society in Trinity College", but "a betrayal of democracy". It's telling that the prosecution
views democracy as something to be enjoyed by scholars in Trinity but not by ordinary people making
decisions based on popular vote!
Continuing on from that, part of prosecution's case against Scott Masterson is that he chanted "no way,
we won't pay"(So, participation in peaceful protest). They then went on to say that the slow march of
Burton's Garda jeep out of Tallaght portrayed by the prosecution as "just another form of confinement".
Keep in mind that this was agreed with the Garda, and according to Garda witnesses they would not
agree to anything that was "unlawful"!
The prosecution describes Garda in Jobstown - who stripped the clothes off Paul Murphy - as
"characterised by an impressive restraint".
The prosecution then goes on to say that "if the judge said I'm locking you up today because I don't
agree with your politics", or if the Garda did it, "we don't allow that - so why would we allow Paul
Murphy to do it?" - what would they call this court case except an attempt to do exactly that?!
This is the sort of stuff we have to deal with on a daily basis in this
trial. Thankfully we are starting to see a light at the end and this
should all be wrapped up regardless of outcome within the next two
weeks.
Please try to get in to lend your support if you can. 10.30am each day
in CCJ. Court 13.
Remember, the outcome of this trial doesn't just affect us six or this
generation but it will have future implications on your children and
grandchildren.
#jobstownnotguilty
Closing statement ends.
Then tanaiste Joan Burton sits in a Garda vehicle during a water charges
protest in Jobstown on November 15th, 2014.
Jessica Magee
Updated: Fri, May 19, 2017, 19:02
A row has been simmering between the executive and judicial branches
of government for some time, writes Alison OConnor.
I was in Wexford district court last Monday i issued a notice of motion to An Garda but all i
heard from the judge [John F Brennan] was do not speak Mr Rochford until i give you
permission, or you will be sent to jail for sevens days for being in contempt. He never looked
me in the face he kept the back of head towards me, but he allowed the guard speak all he
wanted, and he gave the guards everything they wanted but nothing for me only threats of
jail.
This is our courts at the present time, we have gone back in time it is more like the 18 hundreds in the
district courts right now. And the guards are looking for trouble in the courts, it is disgraceful how the
guards are behaving and the district court judges allow the guards to lie through the teeth. And you will
hear the judges saying i have to take the guards word, this is absolutely crazy the the liars are the
guards.
I wish i could say different who would want their sons and daughters to join an organisation that trains
them to lie at all cost.
The Government is to press ahead with controversial reforms of the
judicial appointments system despite an unprecedented warning from
the countrys top judges that the move will have serious implications
for the administration of justice.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkars Government now risks a major rift with the
most powerful judges after their objection to a proposed new lay-
majority body deciding on promotions to the bench.
A row over the Judicial Appointments Commission has also widened
among politicians, with Transport Minister Shane Ross now accused of
having a personal agenda in driving the reforms.
Under the plans, the judiciary appointments advisory board will be
replaced by an 11-member commission, including a lay majority and a
lay chairperson.
Legislation for the commission will be debated for up to eight hours
over three days in the Dil this week.
In an extraordinary development yesterday, the five heads of the top
courts sent a letter to Mr Varadkar, with a stern warning about
reforming the system.
The letter was signed by the Chief Justice, the president of the Court of
Appeal, the President of the High Court, the President of the Circuit
Court, and the President of the District Court.
It is expected to be discussed at the weekly Cabinet meeting today but a
spokesman for the Department of Justice insisted last night the reforms
would proceed.
The challenge followed an earlier statement by the Association of
Judges of Ireland, who warned the legislation was seriously flawed.
The association said the changes would not serve to depoliticise the
process. Rationale for a lay majority had not been explained, it said, and
changes would damage the judiciary and State as a whole.
However, the Government will proceed with the reforms, which are
being fast-tracked before the Dil summer recess.
The commitment was made by Mr Varadkar with Government partners,
the Independent Alliance, in an effort to defuse the row over the
promotion of Attorney General Mire Whelan to the Court of Appeal.
However, senator Michael McDowell a former attorney general and
justice minister claimed that Mr Ross had a personal agenda,
wanting to overhaul the system, based on a book he had written, as well
as an unfortunate experience in the courts. Mr Ross did not return
calls about this claim, but he said he understood the resistance to the
reforms from the legal lobby.
The spat among politicians, however, is set to widen after additional
criticism from Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan. It emerged last night
that he texted Fine Gael TDs over the weekend, saying he was
disappointed by some of Mr Rosss remarks about judges.
His spokesman confirmed Mr Flanagan had made contact with Fine
Gael TDs but refused to discuss claims about texts.
The Government is expected to be supported by Sinn Fin, which will
likely bring to 80 the numbers it can depend on to pass the judicial bill.
However, Fianna Fil will oppose it.
Justice spokesman Jim OCallaghan told the Irish Examiner he believed
the new judicial commission would encourage interest groups to apply
to be members and make the appointments more political.
You will have pro-life or pro-choice groups applying or groups who are
harder or softer on criminals, said Mr OCallaghan, who is a barrister.
He claimed that senior members of Fine Gael were in fact opposed to
the reforms and that the Fine Gael-led Government had only caved into
Mr Rosss demands to get back into power.
They would have promised to drain the Shannon if they had been
asked, claimed Mr OCallaghan.
IN a landmark case in 1982, the Supreme Court Judge Seamus Henchy
spoke about The bitter Irish race-memory of politically appointed and
Executive-oriented judges.
Perhaps it is that race-memory that lends historical weight to the new
system of appointing judges about to be introduced by the Oireachtas
at the behest of Shane Ross.
While Mr Justice Henchy was speaking in the context of the
constitutional guarantee of trial by jury, it is hardly too much of a
stretch to argue that the appointment of judges would also benefit from
significant lay input.
Our common law tradition is a broad church where the laity ie, the
jury often takes centre stage. It has survived violence, politicial
upheavel, revolution and constitutional change. Its endurance is
testament to the fact that, in certain circumstances, the amateur
trumps the professional.
In that context, there is logic in the reasoning that judicial appointments
are too important to be left to the experts. However, the insistence by
the Government that there should not only be a lay majority but also a
lay chair of the commission may be a mistake.
The purpose of a chairman is to put things in context in an impartial and
neutral manner. It is not a skill that everyone has but judges exercise it
every day in charges to a jury.
In that respect, it would make far more sense if the commission
chairman was a judge rather than a lay person.
Putting this out as a message to our Garda the guardian's of the peace once again this week proved the
garda are more than happy to perjure themselves in the courts and bare face lie on the stand to get convictions
against citizens for exercising there constitutional rights to peacefully assemble
One hundred plus guards gave evidence and everyone of them lied on the stand to try get people convicted
Now we hope there are some good gaurds left or is it like the priests as people say there couldn't be because if there was
they wouldn't stay quiet on all the wrongs the rest are doing
The garda are covering for murderers rapists and child molesters all because they run in political circles and have links
with the likes of ff.fg senior gardi judges and barristers
The guards should remember they swear an oath to protect the people not only the ones with political influence
If someone told yes to put your hands in the fire would yes no why cause your fingers be burnt
Have ye no brains to think for yourselves or yes all just chasing that promotion or is it yes just don't care
How many of your colleagues are struggling with bills mortgage rent childcare do you think they care about use
From the nurses .teachers. public transport services workers. army .guards yes only have to look at the pattern the
government's run the services into the ground and eventually privatize the lot
Even use guards yes how would you like to be working for g4s security because that's were yes are heading don't believe
us try reading a bit on C.E.T.A and T.T.I.P which they talk about privatize all public services it's happening across the
water in England already or is it use just don't care
Garda garda honour your oath or have yes still got one #WAKETHEFUCKUP
Putting this out as a message to our Garda the guardian's of the peace once again this week proved the
garda are more than happy to perjure themselves in the courts and bare face lie on the stand to get convictions
against citizens for exercising there constitutional rights to peacefully assemble
One hundred plus guards gave evidence and everyone of them lied on the stand to try get people convicted
Now we hope there are some good gaurds left or is it like the priests as people say there couldn't be because if there was
they wouldn't stay quiet on all the wrongs the rest are doing
The garda are covering for murderers rapists and child molesters all because they run in political circles and have links
with the likes of ff.fg senior gardi judges and barristers
The guards should remember they swear an oath to protect the people not only the ones with political influence
If someone told yes to put your hands in the fire would yes no why cause your fingers be burnt
Have ye no brains to think for yourselves or yes all just chasing that promotion or is it yes just don't care
How many of your colleagues are struggling with bills mortgage rent childcare do you think they care about use
From the nurses .teachers. public transport services workers. army .guards yes only have to look at the pattern the
government's run the services into the ground and eventually privatize the lot
Even use guards yes how would you like to be working for g4s security because that's were yes are heading don't believe
us try reading a bit on C.E.T.A and T.T.I.P which they talk about privatize all public services it's happening across the
water in England already or is it use just don't care
Garda garda honour your oath or have yes still got one #WAKETHEFUCKUP
Millions of your money has been wasted bringing water protesters to our courts.
Whether they be the Jobstown protesters or the various activists around the country who blocked meter
installations.
This money could have been used to build houses , fund hospitals , invest in infrastructure creating jobs but no Fine Gael
and Labour conspired with the Gardai and the Judiciary to exact revenge on those who stood against water charges.
People have had their lives torn apart and all the grubby fuckers who run this country were interested in was seeking
revenge.
Photo: From left, Jobstown defendant Ken Purcell, against whom charges
were dropped, Scott Masterson, Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy,
councillors Michael Murphy and Kieran Mahon, Frank Donaghy and
Michael Banks celebrate after being found not guilty of the false
imprisonment of then-tnaiste Joan Burton. Picture: Courtpix
The six defendants were cleared of all charges by the jury at the Dublin
Circuit Criminal Court, nine weeks after the Jobstown protest trial
opened.
It took a jury just three hours and 10 minutes to return unanimous
verdicts of not guilty.
The court room, which was packed to capacity, erupted in cheers as the
verdicts were handed down shortly after midday. There were cheers of
No way, we wont pay, and several supporters broke down in tears.
Judge Melanie Greally told the men once the crowd calmed down: You
have been found not guilty. You are free to go.
Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Mr Murphy said the decision of the jury
meant that an inquiry into how garda handled the investigation is
required.
The Director of [Public] Prosecutions can only decide to prosecute
based on the file given to them by garda and certainly it is our view a lot
in that file was not true. They amount to lies, so of course, there has to
be an investigation, he said.
Mr Murphy also called for the charges against 11 other persons present
on the day to be dropped because he said the entire investigation is
tainted.
The six men had been on trial since April 26, charged with falsely
imprisoning former tnaiste Joan Burton and her adviser Karen
OConnell for three hours during a water charges protest in Jobstown.
All six defendants had pleaded not guilty to falsely imprisoning Ms
Burton and Ms OConnell by restricting their personal liberty without
their consent at Fortunestown Road, Jobstown, Tallaght on November
15, 2014.
The charges against a seventh accused, Ken Purcell, were dropped at
the conclusion of the prosecution case after Judge Greally ruled the
extension of his garda detention in February 2015 was unlawful.
The accused were: Mr Murphy, 34, from Kingswood Heights in Tallaght;
Councillor Michael Murphy, 53, from Whitechurch Way in Ballyboden in
Dublin; Councillor Kieran Mahon, 39, from Bolbrook Grove in Tallaght;
34-year-old Scott Masterson, from Carrigmore Drive in Tallaght; 71-
year-old Frank Donaghy from Alpine Rise in Tallaght, and 46-year-old
Michael Banks from Brookview Green in Tallaght.
Ahead of delivering their verdict, the jury asked to watch garda air
support video footage taken on the day of the Jobstown protest.
In her initial charge to the jury on Monday, Judge Melanie Greally
outlined the definition of the charge of false imprisonment, which she
said must involve total restraint. She said if there was a means of
escape, or egress, than the restraint could not be total.
Ms Burton, when contacted last night, offered no comment to the
verdict other than to say she will make comment in the coming days.
In the Dil, Solidarity TD Mick Barry described the outcome of the case
as a stunning defeat for the political establishment who wanted to
create a powerful chill factor to stop protests. He described Ms Burton
as the star witness for the State in the case and accused the Labour
Party of a shabby attempt to frame socialists for standing up for their
communities.
Mr Barry said the Government used the Jobstown incident in an
attempt to gain revenge against those of us on the Left who have
defeated you on the issue of water charges.
The Government is wasting a fortune in taxpayers money on these
cases. The Left are on the front foot now, he said.
Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald said the Dil should not rerun the
evidence: We respect the court decision of course. This was a jury
trial. The jury makes it decision and justice takes it course.
While a court case is under way, in this House we have always followed
the precedent of not commenting on it in detail. We follow that very
carefully, as in many court cases there is always the possibility of
appeal, and I intend to continue to do that today.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/jobstown-verdict-six-defendants-
found-not-guilty-paul-murphy-demands-full-inquiry-453768.html
Rule 22(d) has proved awkward for the Bar Council in recent years: inter alia it did not report its
nominations to the Barristers Professional Conduct Tribunal, and it did report its nomination to the
new Legal Services Regulatory Authority. While the Bar Council is entitled to propose its amendment,
the manner in which it attempted to remove this check and balance on its own activities violated the
very constitutional provision designed to subject such proposals to proper scrutiny.
The Disciplinary Code affects all barristers, who are entitled to notice of any proposed changes in
accordance with the constitution.
LATEST NEWS
Correspondence with the current Chairman of the Bar Council has proved futile so far. The current
Chairman Paul McGarry proposed the motions under the previous Chairman David
Barniville. Besides the motion to amend the Constitution being inadmissible at an A.G.M., attendance
at the A.G.M. did not in any event reach quorum. This puts a question over the validity of all other
motions at the A.G.M. The Chairman wrote that he deemed matters to be in order, but that seems
inadequate as it implies the Chairman of the Bar Council has the power to deem himself above the
Constitution. Progress seems unlikely before the 2017 A.G.M., unless the Chairman adopts a more
informed position before then.
Bar Council of Ireland topic. Bar ... Modern The Belgian Council of State is a judicial and advisory
body that assists the ... The monarch's role and duties under
http://parapet.ie/campaigns/bar-councils-unconstitutional-attempt-to-reduce-
its-own-transparency-obligations/
It is difficult to prosecute for perjury in Ireland because there is no prohibition on perjury on the statute
books, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
It is not unusual in court cases, both in the civil and the criminal courts, for the judge in summing up, to
dismiss a person's evidence as lacking credibility. In some cases they go so far as to state that the
witness, including sometimes a Garda witness, lied on oath. They have even added a recommendation
that the matter be referred to the DPP. But that is usually the last heard of the matter.
This is not because of a unique tolerance of swearing false evidence among the Irish authorities, but
because it is a very difficult offence to prosecute. There is no prohibition on perjury on the Irish statute
books.
The 1911 Perjury Act, passed by the British parliament, made it an offence for a person to make a
statement before a judicial tribunal "which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true". If
convicted, the person making the statement faces prison for up to seven years.
However, this Act never became law in Ireland, although it would be another decade before the state
became independent and made its own laws. It was therefore not among the laws translated into Irish
law on independence and no equivalent law was ever enacted.
In his seminal book on criminal law, Mr Peter Charleton SC commented this left "the law here in its
usual haphazard state".
Yet there are references to perjury in some 40 pieces of Irish legislation, as varied as the Companies
Act, the Cork Harbour Act, the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Mental Health
Act. These all state the circumstances, under the specific legislation, in which a person would be open
to prosecution for perjury.
There is a common law offence of perjury, created by judicial statement and tradition, and codified in
the Garda Sochna guide. This requires two witnesses to corroborate the falsehood of the statement
made on oath or one witness with additional substantial corroborative evidence, as well as "corrupt
intention".
The mere fact that two witnesses contradict each other does not provide a basis for such a charge,
according to the guide. The statement must be proved to have been wilfully and deliberately false.
Therefore there have been few prosecutions for perjury (though there have been a few), and judicial
references to a witness lying in the witness box rarely go anywhere.
The Bar Council has called for a new law on perjury to bring the law up to date, codify it and simplify
prosecutions. It also wants such legislation to deal with the problem of fraudulent insurance claims,
making it an offence under a new Perjury Act to exaggerate an injury or losses sustained in an accident,
for example.
Mr Hugh Mohan SC, who has worked on this subject for the Bar Council, told The Irish Times: "We
would like there to be, in every case where a claim for damages is made, a verifying affidavit from the
plaintiff. This would be sworn to be 'true and accurate to the best of my ability'. The defendant would
have to do the same. If the Perjury Act included an offence of deliberately exaggerating injuries or
losses, it would be a deterrent to the making of false claims."
He said that at the moment it was virtually impossible to mount a prosecution for perjury where there
was any degree of complexity in the claim. "It is very difficult in the absence of an Act setting out what
the offence it," he said.
This contrasts with the situation in Britain, where perjury is defined and there have been a number of
high profile prosecutions. Jonathan Aitken was a minister in a British government. Jeffrey Archer was
chairman of the Conservative Party, yet their elevated status did not protect either of them from being
charged with perjury, convicted, serving long sentences and enduring political ruin. Archer is still in
jail.
He, at least, would, however, have been likely to have been convicted in Ireland as well, according to
Mr Mohan. He gave false evidence in a libel trial in which he was awarded a lot of money. The person
who corroborated the false evidence later came forward and said it had been false and his testimony
was accepted by the court.
There has been no comparable case here and there have not been anything like the number of
prosecutions that would seem to be warranted by courtroom references to evidence that was not
credible. Even more conspicuously, claimants who have failed to convince a court of their claims and
were left paying their legal costs as a result, have not, so far, had to face any criminal prosecutions for
false claims.
Until a clear law exists under which to prosecute them, they are unlikely to do so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-
haphazard-state-of-perjury-law-
1.357008
Perjury Act 1911 1911 CHAPTER 6. An
Act ... This Act shall not extend to
Scotland or Ireland
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge
o5/1-2/6/enacted/data.pdf
THE year 1649 was a climacteric watershed - Oliver Cromwell
Cromwell was in Ireland from 15 August 1649 to 26 May 1650. In that ... THE year 1649 was a
climacteric watershed ...
http://olivercromwell.org/cromwell_in_i
reland.pdf
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Doc
s/PE/htm/PE.37.htm
FRAUD FACTS Issue 17March 2014 ... documents and to
require a person to answer ... Ireland.
https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/Fraud-Facts-17B-Fraud-in-
Scotland-Revised-March14.pdf
Perjury is the criminal offense of lying under oath. A perjury charge may be brought when someone
makes a false statement after being sworn in or promising to tell the truth in a legal situation. For
instance, a person giving testimony on the stand during a court case who tells a lie may be charged with
perjury. Someone who lies during a deposition, or who lies on a signed declaration or affidavit can also
be charged with this offense.
Perjury Laws
Both individual states and the federal government have laws making perjury a criminal offense. While
the basic definition of perjury is the same at both the federal and the state level, the penalties may be
different. For instance, the federal law against perjury in the U.S. Code classifies perjury as a felony.
This means that someone who lies under oath in federal court, or who lies under oath to a person acting
on behalf of the federal government may be sentenced to up to five years in jail.
Some states classify perjury as a felony as well. Penalties for a felony are always more serious than a
misdemeanor and can include large fines, and a year or more of jail or prison time. In other states,
however, perjury may be a misdemeanor. In New York, for instance, whether perjury is a felony or a
misdemeanor depends upon the lie that was told and the impact of that lie. Under New York law,
simply telling a lie under oath is a class A misdemeanor, but telling a material lie under oath, or an
important lie, is a felony.
Elements of Perjury
In order for a defendant to be found guilty of perjury, the prosecutor must prove all elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although the elements of perjury vary between individual states and federal law, the elements of
perjury are similar. In order for a person to be charged with perjury, he or she generally must have 1)
been sworn in or made a solemn legal promise to tell the truth; and 2) made a false statement or told a
lie on purpose. Prosecutors can sometimes prove that a defendant lied by showing inconsistency in
prior statements made by the defendant. For instance, if a person testifies one way in a deposition and
another way in court, and the statements conflict with one another, this is solid evidence of
perjury even if the prosecutor cannot prove which of the statements was untrue.
Most states and the federal government have an additional requirement, that the misstatement was
material or important to the proceedings in which it was made. If a witness was testifying in case about
a robbery of a diner, for example, lying about whether he saw the defendant at the diner would be
material since seeing the defendant at the scene of the crime would be relevant to the defendant's guilt
or innocence. Lying about what he ate for breakfast, on the other hand, usually wouldn't be a material
misstatement that would result in a charge of perjury.
Perjury charges are usually very difficult for prosecutors to prove because perjury is a crime of intent.
This means that a defendant charged with perjury can only be found guilty if the prosecutor shows
beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she intended to make the false statement under oath, or, that the
witness told the lie on purpose. As such, criminal attorneys often defend their clients by arguing that
the defendant did not intend to lie, or that the party believed the statement to be the truth at the time
they made it.
Lawyers defending clients accused of perjury also typically make the arguement that the misstatement
was not material or relevant to the proceedings. However, this defense requires attorneys to show
that the statement was actually irrelevant; it is not enough to show that the defendant believed his lie
was not relevant. Courts have consistently held that a person's belief about whether his statement was
material or not isn't the important factor. Instead, the important factor is whether the statement
pertained to an issue viewed as objectively material by the court.
Another good defense to perjury charges is proving that the false statement was corrected before it had
an impact. For instance, if a party said something untrue under oath but recanted before the statement
had any legal effect, such as before the jury considered its truth during the trial, then the defendant
could not be found guilty of perjury.
Criminal Law II Theme : Public Law Credit Points : ... - Perjury - Contempt of
Court ... Criminal Justice in Ireland, (2002,
http://www.keiabroad.org/ireland/syllabus/law/Criminal%20Law%20II.pdf
Country Review Report of Ireland ... Ireland signed the United Nations ... Art. 25
UNCAC is implemented through the common law crime of subornation of perjury
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2015_10
_28_Ireland_Final_Country_Report_English.pdf
SUMMARY
This contribution aims to point out valuable lessons from the shortcomings of the
Judicial Service Commission as highlighted in the case of The Cape Bar Council v
The Judicial Service Commission. The case involved the failure by the Judicial
Service Commission to fill vacancies at the Western Cape High Court despite
there being highly eligible candidates available for appointment. The judgment
serves as a reminder to the Judicial Service Commission that as a public
functionary it is subject to the rule of law and to the constitutional principles of
accountability and transparency. Public functionaries are further reminded that
they are subject to constitutional control. Such control is essential in ensuring
that any abuse of power does not take place.
1 Introduction
In early 2011 the Judicial Service Commission was attacked by the Cape Bar
Council for its alleged unconstitutional practices in a matter that was heard by the
Western Cape High Court. The case involved the failure by the Judicial Service
Commission to fill vacancies at the Western Cape High Court despite there being
highly eligible candidates available for appointment. To make matters
complicated the Judicial Service Commission failed to provide reasons for its
failure to make judicial recommendations, arguing that they were not legally
required to give reasons. Despite the successful turnout of the judgment which
highlighted the constitutional duty of the Judicial Service Commission to uphold
the rule of law principle, there are still many media reports relating to the
improper functioning of the Judicial Service Commission when making judicial
recommendations.
The Cape Bar is argued to be the least "transformed" in South Africa and a result
concerns have been raised in the media that the Judicial Service Commission's
decision could have been based on affirmative action criteria. However since the
Judicial Service Commission did not expressly state section 174(2) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 19961 as the reason for its failure to
fill the remaining vacancies, the Court did not deem affirmative action as central
to its judgment. Koen J also argued that any comments concerning section
174(2) would be obiter. Therefore emphasis will not be placed on affirmative
action in this note but on the importance of the Judicial Service Commission as a
public functionary being bound by the requirements of the rule of law and the
duty to give effect to principles of accountability and transparency.
This note aims to point out some valuable lessons that could be learned from the
shortcomings of the Judicial Service Commission as highlighted in the Cape Bar
Council Case. The Court strongly emphasised the duty of the Judicial Service
Commission as an organ of state to observe and respect the principles of the rule
of law, accountability and transparency, and also their constitutional obligation to
perform public functions in a rational and non-arbitrary manner. The judgment of
the case should serve as a reminder to the Judicial Service Commission that as a
public functionary it is subject to the rule of law and to the constitutional
principles of accountability and transparency.
During April 2011, the Judicial Service Commission (the respondent) advertised
three vacancies for judicial appointment in respect of the Western Cape High
Court and invited persons to apply. Seven candidates were shortlisted by a sub-
committee of the respondent from the list of the candidates who applied. Of the
shortlisted candidates, Mr Henney was black, six other candidates were white and
one was female. The shortlisted candidates were then interviewed and the
respondent took a decision to recommend only one candidate, namely Henney J. 2
The Cape Bar Council (the applicant) alleged that the failure of the respondent to
fill the two remaining judicial vacancies was irrational, unfairly discriminatory and
unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutional. The respondent offered two
reasons for the failure to fill the vacancies. The first was that the unsuccessful
candidates failed to obtain a majority of votes from members of the respondent.
The second reason was that the respondent was not legally required to provide
reasons for the failure to fill the remaining vacancies.3
The applicant alleged that there are suggestions in the respondent's papers
referring to press releases and statements of a "balance" which needed to be
struck between potential candidates. That, according to the applicants, suggests
that section 174(2) of the Constitution5 could have influenced the respondents'
recommendation criteria.6 In terms of the abovementioned section, the Judicial
Service Commission has to take into account the need for the judiciary to reflect
broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa when judicial officers
are appointed.
The Court held that the failure of the respondents to fill the two remaining
vacancies was unconstitutional and unlawful and fell to be set aside. Court further
held that there was no reason why the respondent could not provide reasons for
its failure to fill the remaining two vacancies. The matter went on appeal to the
Supreme Court of Appeal, which also held that the failure to fill the remaining two
vacancies was irrational and unlawful.
In it's the reasoning the Court made emphasis on the fact that in recommending
candidates for judicial appointment the Judicial Service Commission is acting in
terms of the Constitution and therefore exercising a public function. The exercise
of a public function in this case is regulated by sections 1(c), 8 (1), 195, 33(1)
and 33(2) of the Constitution, which are discussed below:
Section 1 (c) of the Constitution provides that the South African State is founded
on the values of the supremacy of the Constitution and the principle of the rule of
law. This encompasses the legality principle, which is applicable in cases dealing
with the exercise of public functions.
Section 33(1) of the Constitution provides for the right to just administrative
action that is lawful and procedurally fair. Section 33(2) states that everyone
whose rights have been affected by administrative action has the right to be
given written reasons for the action.
It can be identified from the Supreme Court of Appeal's arguments that when
exercising public functions, organs of state must at all times comply with the
values and principles of the Constitution. The Court identified that the exercise of
public functions can be restricted in the following ways:
One of the aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legality, which expresses
the fundamental idea that the exercise of public power is legitimate only when
lawful.7 In this context the Court first stated that the body exercising the public
power must not exercise any power that is beyond that conferred upon it by the
law.8 Secondly, the Court held that the exercise of public power must not be
arbitrary, but rational. The authority found in the case of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association9 was relied on where it was held that it is a
requirement of the rule of law that the exercise of public power by public
functionaries should not be arbitrary. A decision is rational if it is rationally
related to the purpose for which power was given.10 In testing whether a decision
is rational or not, the reasons for taking such a decision should be submitted in
order for affected parties to establish if their matter can be reviewed.11 Such
prevention by the principle of the rule of law of the arbitrary and irrational
exercise of public power goes hand in hand with transparency, which contributes
towards a culture of justification.12 The case of the President of the Republic of
South African v SA Rugby Union13 emphasised the need for the rational and non-
arbitrary exercise of public power by showing that the principle of legality
requires holders of public power to act in good faith.
The Court stated that section 195 of the Constitution requires that public
administration be governed inter alia by "the democratic values and principles
enshrined in the Constitution," including the principles that public functionaries
must be "accountable" and that "transparency must be fostered".14
It was stressed that the Judicial Service Commission as a public body created to
serve the public's interest must perform its functions openly and transparently.
Such a requirement is consistent with a culture of justification which signals a
decided rejection of past odious laws, policies and practices. 15
The transparent exercise of public functions goes hand in hand with the
constitutional right of access to information. In terms of section 23 of the
Constitution everyone has the right of access to all of the information held by the
state or any of its organs at any level of government in so far as such information
is required for the exercise or protection of any of his or her rights.16 The purpose
of section 23 according to the case of Phato v Attorney General17 is to create a
system which holds government accountable and therefore creates public
confidence in the administration of public affairs.
The Court also relied on the case of Rail Commuters Action Group,18 wherein it
was stated that the giving of reasons satisfies the individual that his or her
matter has been considered and also promotes good administrative functioning
because the decision makers know that they can be called upon to explain their
decisions and thus are forced to evaluate all the relevant considerations correctly
and carefully.19
The failure of the Judicial Service Commission to provide reasons damages the
culture of justification, accountability and transparency, which culture is essential
for accountability in governance. The continuous failure to perform public
functions lawfully could eventually lead us back to the odious laws, policies and
practices of the past. The Judicial Service Commission's failure to fill the
remaining vacancies affects the right of members of the community to access the
courts, as it depletes the capacity of the courts, which are already inundated with
matters to be allocated trial dates, resulting inevitably in long delays. The
continuous failure to fill the vacancies and appoint qualified short-listed
candidates amounts to the public being denied the best judicial resources at the
country's disposal. The lack of transparency in the Judicial Service Commission's
recommendation criteria leads to the creation of speculation that perhaps only
executive-minded candidates will be recommended for judicial appointment. 20
5 Lessons to be learned
Openness is an essential element that is required when state organs render public
functions. In this case the Judicial Service Commission had to clearly indicate the
criteria that it had followed when making its recommendations.
6 Conclusions
The ruling of the Cape Bar Council case serves as a good example that illustrates
how any public functionary is subject to constitutional control when rendering
public services. Such control is essential in order to ensure that the abuse of
power does not take place and that the community benefits from public services.
The Judicial Service Commission should take into account that its conduct when
performing its constitutionally mandated tasks should at all times comply with the
principle of the rule of law, as well as the principles of openness and
accountability.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Literature
Hoexter C Administrative Law in South Africa (Juta Cape Town 2007) [ Links ]
Wesson M and Du Plessis M "Fifteen years on: central issues relating to the
transformation of the South African judiciary" 2008 SAJHR 187-213 [ Links ]
Case law
Cape Bar Council v Judicial Service Commission 2012 2 All SA 143 (WCC)
President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union
2000 1 SA 1 (CC)
Rail Commuters Action Group v Transnet Limited t/a Metrorail 2005 4 BCLR 301
(CC)
Legislation
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Introduction Constitutional law is the ... the burden of proof rests on those who argue that the Bill is
unconstitutional ... established the Council of Ireland
https://lawinireland.wordpress.com/constitutional-law/
1
In terms of s 174(2) of the Constitution of the Repubiic of South Africa, 1996;
"the need for the Judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of
South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed".
2 Cape Bar Council v Judicial Service Commission 2012 2 All SA 143 (WCC) para
4 (hereafter referred to as Cape Bar Council case).
3 Cape Bar Council case para 8.
4 Cape Bar Council case para 10.
5 S 174(2) of the Constitution of the Repubicc of South Africa, 1996.
6 Cape Bar Council case para 145.
7 Hoexter Administrative Law 117.
8 Cape Bar Council case para 25; Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater
Johannesburg TransnationalMetropoittan Council 1999 1 SA 374 (CC) para 58.
9 Cape Bar Council case para 26; Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of
SA: In re Ex parte President of the Republcc of South Africa 2000 2 SA 674 (CC)
para 33.
10 Cape Bar Council case para 27.
11 Cape Bar Council case para 30.
12 Cape Bar Council case para 30.
13 Cape Bar Council case para 49; President of the Republic of South Africa v
South African Rugby Football Union 2000 1 SA 1 (CC) para 17.
14 Cape Bar Council case para 20,57.
15 Cape Bar Council case para 29; President of RSA v M & G Media Limited 2011
4 BCLR 363 (SCA) para 9.
16 Hoexter Admnnstrative Law 92.
17
Phato vAttorney-General, Eastern Cape 1995 1 SA 199 (E) para 1.
18 Cape Bar Council (note 2 above) para 29; Rail Commuters Action Group v
Transnet Limited t/a Metrorail 2005 4 BCLR 301 (CC) para 16.
19 Wesson and Du Plessis 2008 SAJHR 181.
The composition of the Judicial and Bar Council ... This bill seeks to ban
reappointments to the JBC in order to avoid the possibility ... 22
unconstitutional,
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1633613575!.pdf
The Committees deliberations on the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill ... the
Judicial Services Commission (JSC) was unconstitutional .
Follow
Paul Murphy @paulmurphy_TD
Joan Burton blocked in by peaceful protesters in
Jobstown. #nowatercharges #wewontpay
1:01 PM - 15 Nov 2014
75 75 Retweets 59 59 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Source: Paul Murphy/Twitter
Judge Greally also stressed upon the jury that this case is
not about the right to protest, and added your verdict is
not about sending messages.
Right to protest
Despite the judges comments, however, supporters of the
Jobstown protesters were unequivocal that the right to
protest was what this case was primarily about and that the
not guilty verdicts sends an incredibly strong message to the
political establishment.
Source: TheJournal.ie
Although traditionally seen as a party of the working class,
there was clear disdain for Labour among the supporters of
the protestors who viewed the party as firmly entrenched
within the establishment.
This was evidenced in court this week with the jeering and
mild heckling of Judge Greally as she reiterated the evidence
given to the court by Joan Burton.
In a statement following the verdict, the Labour Party said:
We note the verdict of the jury announced earlier today.
The investigation of any criminal matter, and the conduct
of any associated prosecution, is decided by An Garda
Sochna and the law officers of the state who operate with
complete independence from the political system.
As we have been all along, the Labour Party remains
resolutely focussed on our central tasks of holding the
Government to account, and campaigning for decency,
justice and equality in society.
Before the verdict was reached, TheJournal.ie spoke to some
supporters of the accused men, some of whom were actually
at the protest on the day. Their take was that bringing
criminal charges against Paul Murphy, in particular, was an
overt political act.
http://www.thejournal.ie/jobstown-verdicts-reactions-
3470436-Jun2017/?utm_source=facebook_short
One man said: It is essential that they are found not guilty.
Otherwise, the parameters for everything changes for any
form of protest, right down to strikes. Everyone would have
been affected by a guilty verdict here.
Whatever about thinking that Paul Murphy might be a
leader in all of this, some of the people on trial just went out
and protested. They were vociferous, maybe, but definitely
not violent. This is definitely all political and about trying to
quell the movement that was the water charges.
When asked why she was there supporting the protesters,
one woman said: Well theres a lot of people here that were
there on the day. I was there on the day.
A lot of people are looking at the accused. They think this is
a farce. I think this is to get Paul Murphy out of the Dil.
They feel threatened. Theyre saying its not political it is
political.
After the verdicts were reached, TDs and politicians doubled
down on this stance outside the court.
Solidarity-PBP TD Mick Barry got the news just before
Leaders Questions started in the Dil. He told
TheJournal.ie that he had the great pleasure of informing
Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald and Labour leader Brendan
Howlin of the verdict.
I legged it out of there, and I came down to celebrate, he said. This is great for
the six men, but this is great for the working class. The jury has defended the
right to protest.
Im choking back tears to be honest.
Outside the court, Paul Murphy was quick to praise his legal team, but also looked
to the support the accused had received from their #JobstownNotGuilty
campaigns that had become ubiquitous on social media.
He said that their efforts inside and outside the courtroom had contributed
heavily to yesterdays result.
As Barry and Murphy embraced, with the chants of Jobstown, innocent ringing
in the air, there was the sense that this was a major political victory.
Party colleague Brid Smith told TheJournal.ie: Its a great result for the Left, the
water movement and, in particular, its a great result for the people of Jobstown
and their representatives.
It sounds out a strong message that the people have risen and will not be put back in their
box So Leo Varadkars attempts to shut down the Left in the Dil will not be tolerated.
And, with that, the chanting slowly began to die down and signs were folded and
put back away.
To the pub, one of the accused shouted, as the water charge protesters went
home to celebrate as victorious, free men.
Solidarity-PBP TD Mick Barry speaking in the Dil just after
the Jobstown verdict
Jun 29, 2017
Solidarity-PBP TD Mick Barry speaks in the Dil following the not guilty verdict in the trial of
six men accused of falsely imprisoning Joan Burton and her adviser during a 2014 Jobstown
protest.
http://jrnl.ie/3469912
TheJournal.ie is an Irish news website that invites its users to shape the news agenda. Read,
share and shape the days stories as they happen, from Ireland, the world and the web.
Michael McGrath said trust between the two parties had been damaged and
is threatening the confidence and supply agreement that underpins
Government
JAMES WARD
06:00, 26 JUN 2
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has been warned by Fianna Fail that any more controversies
like the Maire Whelan scandal will spark a General Election.
The Oppositions finance spokesman Michael McGrath said trust between the two
parties had been damaged and is threatening the confidence and supply agreement
that underpins Government.
He issued a frank warning to Mr Varadkar that any more clashes between the parties
will bring the country to the polls.
The threat came as it emerged two Cabinet ministers threatened to walk out over
Attorney General Mrs Whelans appointment to the Court of Appeal.
At the core of it is the fact the Government proceeded with a judicial appointment
that breached the established practice of 22 years.
They then compounded that in my view by rushing through the formal appointment
of Maire Whelan to the Court of Appeal, with the Taoiseach making it known he was
available the following morning, the Monday morning, for the formal appointment.
We cant afford for any more examples like this to emerge or else inevitably we will
be moving towards a General Election if that were to take place. We dont believe its
necessary.
Meanwhile, Junior Minister John Halligan has appeared to confirm that Transport
Minister Shane Ross
threatened to quit Cabinet over the appointment and said he would have followed
him out. He told Newstalk: I did speak to Shane Ross on Sunday afternoon.
He rang me to say he had been informed that there was an appointment to be made in
the Aras the next
morning and the seal of approval would be given.
He found this unacceptable because he had called for a review which was to be
discussed at Cabinet on Tuesday.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-warned-
fianna-10688346