Jobstown Acquittals, Jury Trials Under Strain

Jobstown acquittals, jury
trials under strain

Social media was used to criticise and impugn the motives
of witnesses
June 30, 17
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.
By harnessing social media on such a scale,

systematically chipping away at one of the pillars of our
jury system, those campaigners have done themselves
and their cause a great disservice.
The IT's 'unbiased' view of the Jobstown trial (and msm complain about fake news), excerpt:
"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."
Shocking article from the IT.
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
A video was introduced by Solidarity reporter Dave Murphy.

At 8.38am on Friday, April 28th last, Solidarity TD Paul
Murphy shared a link to a video on Facebook.
WARNING from April 2017
In light of recent events this must Never happen!
Garda want ban on people

photographing and recording them
on duty
AGSI conference kicks off
Calls for ban on photographing and recording garda on duty
Motion for training on dealing with media during duty
Three out of five farmers accuse Government of under-investing in
rural policing
Public opinion split on whether sufficient money is set aside for
policing of nation's roads
Antoinette Cunningham, of the Association of Garda Sergeant

Whisteblowers & Jobstown have highlighted the NEED for Video Evidence
Tom Brady and Cathal McMahon
April 10 2017
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.
The 39th AGSI Annual Delegate Conference begins in Killarney this

afternoon. In a break with tradition Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald will
not be attending.
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."
Speaking to RTE Radio One's Morning Ireland, Association president

Antoinette Cunningham said members of the AGSI have found photos or
video of themselves "placed on some social media sites".
"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.
"It can bring significant risk and stress," she added.
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 president Antoinette Cunningham said this finding was

encouraging.
"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
Mr Justice Peter Charleton.

Niall O'Connor
June 30 2017
A second Garda whistleblower has made serious allegations of widespread
abuse by Garda intelligence of the powers surrounding the accessing of phone
records, the Irish Independent can reveal.
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.
According to correspondence seen by this newspaper, the whistleblower

claims that she repeatedly raised her concerns about the processes
surrounding the accessing of phone records but was ignored.
The whistleblower was attached to a highly sensitive section known as the

Telephone Liaison Unit (TLU).
The TLU is tasked with approving applications for phone calls and text
messages to be traced as part of Garda investigations.
There are allegations:

That tens of thousands of phone records have been "unlawfully obtained" over
a period of years.
A serving garda was arrested based on false information being submitted as

part of an application.
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.
In February, he agreed an out-of-court settlement with An Garda Sochna

and the Justice Minister.
A Garda spokesman last night said the allegations will be examined by a

sitting judge.
"The original allegations referred to have been referred to the designated

judge under the relevant legislation and who is independent in her functions
in this regard. The outcome of that process is awaited," the spokesman said.
"An Garda Sochna is committed to co-operating fully with the Disclosures

Tribunal. It would appear matters you make reference to are before both the
Tribunal and GSOC and on that basis we would not be in a position to
comment further at this time."
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/
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.
At Olytico, we have analysed this data in an effort to answer
some key questions:
Was this a lot of tweets from a very

small number of accounts?
There were over 7,700 unique accounts that used the
#JobstownNotGuilty hashtag in the last year giving an
average of 11 tweets per account.
What were the key dates?
Across the last 12 months, there were four days on which
#JobstownNotGuilty tweets spiked significantly: the first two
relate to the trial of a 17 year old and the second two relate to
the start and end of the trial of six others.
#JobstownNotGuilty Key Daily Spikes in

Volume of Tweets
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
Aug 16
Oct 16
Dec 16
Feb 17
Apr 17
Jun 17
Joan Burton testifies at trial of 17 year old
Verdict announced in trial of 17 year old
First day of trial
Verdict announced
Jan 171
Jan 171
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.
What did people share? What were

the most popular links in tweets?
The two most shared links were both videos:
A documentary on Facebook (Jobstown A Protest on Trial)
Who were the most influential
accounts?
The answer depends on how you define influence. For the
purpose of this analysis, Olytico has looked at two factors:
volume of tweets sent, and the follower number of the
accounts.
Volume of tweets sent:
Two accounts sent more than 1,000 #JobstownNotGuilty
tweets during the time period: AndreaMurray67 (1,789)
and IzzyKamikaze (1,145).
While these were the most active accounts in terms of tweets
sent, they were not alone over 160 accounts sent more than
100 tweets each.
Impressions generated:
A number of accounts combined high follower numbers with
high frequency tweeting to generate the highest levels of
impressions:
Paul Murphy TD: 828 tweets sent to 14,400 followers,
generating potential impression of 14.4 million.
Joe Higgins: 170 tweets sent to 20,700 followers, generating
potential impressions of 3.5 million.
Is their any other measure of

influence? Celebrities or the media?
89 of the accounts who used the #JobstownNotGuilty hashtag
were verified (you can check out Twitters definition of a
verified account here).
These included:
Media outlets
Follow
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
Sports stars
View image on Twitter
Follow
Paddy Holohan
@PaddyHolohanMMA
Stand behind these guys Everyone has the right

to protest @Jobienotguilty #jobstownnotguilty #RT
12:16 AM - 30 Mar 2017
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
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
and International political figures

Follow
Yanis Varoufakis
@yanisvaroufakis
A documentary on the #JobstownNotGuilty defendants is
now available here. Plus a primer into what the stakes are:
https://
tinyurl.com/m46hwl9
5:54 AM - 14 Apr 2017

What does this mean for social

media use in future trials?
As Colm Kenna reported in the Irish Times, the judge regularly
warned the jury not to be reading about the case in
newspapers or online. Traditional media have covered court
cases for centuries. But there have always been gate keepers
editors, journalist, publishers who ultimately decided what
was covered and which voices were heard. Social media
removes these barriers, as was evidenced with the
#JobstownNotGuilty campaign. While our analysis focused on
Twitter, the conversations and content featured on Facebook,
YouTube and countless other social media platforms. These
networks arent replacing traditional media but theyre giving
campaigners alternative options to have their voices heard.
For further information, email info@olytico.com

http://olytico.com/jobstownnotguilty-analysis-89000-tweets-across-365-days/
Jobstown: Six cleared

after lengthy trial that
cost the taxpayer 2.5m
Defendants in the Jobstown trial Paul Murphy TD (left) and Cllr

Michael Murphy celebrate as they leave the Dublin Circuit Criminal
Court after they were all found not guilty.
Andrew Phelan and Isabel Hayes
June 30 2017
There were scenes of jubilation in Dublin Circuit Criminal
Court as Paul Murphy TD and five co-accused in the
Jobstown trial were found not guilty.
Cheers and applause rose up from gathered supporters as
the six were cleared of falsely imprisoning former Tnaiste
Joan Burton and her adviser at an anti-water charges
protest.
Each defendant stood in turn to hear identical unanimous
verdicts read out by the court registrar and confirmed by
the forewoman of the jury.
Finally, after a 40-day trial, Judge Melanie Greally told
them: "You have been found not guilty. You are free to go."
Afterwards, Mr Murphy said millions of euro had been
spent in an attempt to criminalise sit-down protests.
According to legal sources, the marathon trial has cost the
State up to 2.5m.
Mr Murphy (34), a Solidarity TD, along with South Dublin
councillors Michael Murphy (53) and Kieran Mahon (39)
as well as three other men - Michael Banks (46), Frank
Donaghy (71) and Scott Masterson (34) - had all denied
falsely imprisoning Ms Burton and her adviser Karen
O'Connell.
The prosecution had maintained the women were trapped
inside two Garda vehicles for around three hours as they
tried to leave Fortunestown Road, Jobstown in Tallaght,
following an adult education graduation ceremony on
November 15, 2014.
The jury of seven men and four women had deliberated for
three hours and 10 minutes when they returned with
verdicts on all counts, shortly after noon yesterday. The
court registrar asked the forewoman if the jury had
reached verdicts.
"We have," she replied. "You say that the accused, Paul
Murphy is not guilty on Count 1," the registrar said.
The packed court then erupted in cheers. Mr Murphy, and
each co-accused, smiled as the verdicts were handed
down.
Michael Murphy and Scott Masterson both gave a thumbs
up before sitting back down in the dock. Judge Greally
thanked the jury members for their "exemplary" work and
exempted them from further service for life.
Supporters in the public gallery clapped, hugged, sobbed
and chanted "no way, we won't pay" before they, and the
six accused filed out of the courtroom.
The trial, which started on April 26, heard the two women
were attending a graduation ceremony at An Cosn further
education centre in Jobstown when anti-water charge
demonstrations broke out. The jury heard they were first
detained in an unmarked Garda Avensis, then a jeep as
they tried to leave.
During the protest, eggs, bottles and other items were
pelted at the Avensis and the windscreen was "shattered".
Garda formed "a human cordon" and Ms Burton and Ms
O'Connell were guided toward the jeep, which was also
surrounded.
Ms Burton said she felt like she was running for her life as
they eventually ran to waiting cars. "He looked pretty
happy with himself, I have to say," she said of Mr Murphy
during the protest. "He was smiling very broadly. He was
the man with the megaphone."
The prosecution alleged the accused men engaged in a
joint enterprise to "trap" the women and totally restrain
their personal liberty.
Although the State accepted the defendants did not engage
in any acts of violence, it was alleged the protest was not
peaceful.
However, defence lawyers argued there was never any
false imprisonment and that the defendants were
exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly
and freedom of expression, and the obstruction of the cars
amounted to no more than "inconvenience, delay and
nuisance".
Paul Murphy said outside the court the trial had been an
attempt to try "to criminalise the anti-water charges
movement, to try to criminalise Jobstown".
"We estimate that millions of euro have already been spent
in... an attempt to criminalise sit-down protests," he said.
He thanked the jury and his supporters for their
involvement in the campaign and "trying to defend the
right to protest".
"The attempt by the establishment to make an example of
us through a conviction in order then to introduce a
generalised chilling effect among all activists and working
class people in general when it comes to effective protest
has fallen flat on its face," Kieran Mahon said.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/jobstown-six-cleared-after-
lengthy-trial-that-cost-the-taxpayer-25m-35880350.html
Fitzgerald denies that

Government had any
'political agenda' in the
trial
Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald.

John Downing
June 30 2017
Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald has rejected as "quite simply untrue" claims by

Solidarity TD Mick Barry that the Government had "a political agenda" in the
Jobstown trial.
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".
The Solidarity TD called upon Ms Fitzgerald, who was replying to Dil

questions for the Government, to explain the role of An Garda Sochna in the
case. He alleged that it was based on 180 statements by garda, many of whom
were senior officers, which the jury rejected.
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.
Water protest case: Action ill-advised

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially in politics it might save
many blushes had we the facility to change the past. Ask Theresa May
or Hillary Clinton. Or Joan Burton.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Irish Examiner Editorial
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
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
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
Mick Caul @caulmick

Chant ringing around the CCJ "Jobstown innocent -
Labour Guilty" #JobstownNotGuilty #not1pipe #right2water
2:18 PM - 29 Jun 2017
The vote on Fortunestown Road

A key part of the case was video footage of a vote that Paul Murphy
held on Fortunestown Road over two hours into the protest. During the
clip, which was played several times throughout the trial, Paul Murphy
called on the crowd to vote on whether to march her (Joan Burton) out
of here or keep her here.
Paul Murphy and Michael Murphy voted for Ms Burton to be slow-
marched to the bypass within the next half hour, although Paul Murphy
also told the crowd he didnt care either way and would go along with
what was decided.
The crowd voted to keep the women there, but the jeep ultimately
made it to the bypass within the next half hour and the women left the
area.
The prosecution argued that this vote indicated that Ms Burton and Ms
OConnell were not free to go.
Its crystal clear from the mans own mouth, Mr Gillane said of Paul
Murphy. The suggested option of a slow march is no more than a
suggested alteration or changing the form of confinement selected by
these detainers.
However, the defence was highly critical of a failure on the part of
garda to locate the Fortunestown Rd vote footage, which they argued
showed Paul Murphy was seeking to bring the protest to an end.
Sean Guerin SC, representing Paul Murphy, said he carried out the vote
on Fortunestown Road at the request of the senior garda at the scene in
an effort to bring it to an end.
Mr Guerin said garda at trial had given inaccurate, incomplete or
misleading accounts of the vote and he expressed astonishment that a
woman who called for Ms Burton to be kept there for the night was not
charged with any offence.
The prosecution also relied on an interview that Paul Murphy gave to
RT later that day in which he said Ms Burton was detained for a
number of hours by us.
Joan Burtons evidence

Ms Burton, who gave evidence over four days, told the trial she was
quite frankly terrified throughout the protest, describing the crowd
surging around her as very, very wild, and enraged.
They were wishing all kinds of stuff on me, illness and death; shouting
and roaring names like c**t and bitch, she said.
Ms Burton became upset as she told the court that her shoe began to
come off as she tried to make her way to the garda jeep while
surrounded by the cordon of garda.
I kept thinking if the crowd got us, where would we run to, and how
would I run without my shoe, she said.
During lengthy cross-examination, Ms Burton denied she was relaxed
while in the car. The court was played some of the 42 videos taken from
her phone that day, including one in which she could be heard telling Ms
OConnell that she should put a message on social media describing the
number of children who were roaming the area.
In another clip, Ms OConnell could be heard saying: This always
happens at the end of protests. The fucking dregs decide not to finish
it.
Ms Burton agreed with defence counsel that this was completely
unacceptable but said they had been in the car for three hours at that
stage and they were stressed out.
Ms OConnell gave evidence that she was petrified, crying and very,
very fearful and that Ms Burton was trying to calm her down and
reassure her.
Argument in the absence of jury
During lengthy submissions in the absence of the jury at the end of the
prosecution case, defence counsel submitted that the case should not
go before the jury for deliberation.
They submitted the charge of false imprisonment could not possibly
apply to their clients, who they said were engaged in a peaceful protest.
They argued that if the case went to the jury for deliberations, it would
undermine the fundamental right of assembly, as set out in the
Constitution.
Judge Greally was told it would be a travesty to expose the accused
men to the possibility of being convicted of a crime that carries a
maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Judge Greally denied the application, saying she believed the jury was
capable of deciding whether the prosecution case of false imprisonment
had been met.
In her ruling in the absence of the jury that ultimately led to the charges
against Ken Purcell being dropped, Judge Greally said that the
extension of Mr Purcells garda detention in February 2015 was
unlawful.
Putting it mildly, the first three hours of his detention were not put to
good use, the judge said.
She noted the superintendent who made the decision to extend his
detention was given a misleading impression as to how the
investigation was progressing that day.
The casual and languid approach of the interviews is inexplicable on
the face of an arrest that was pre-planned and carried out at 7.30am
with great precision, she said.
The trial heard that some of the defendants were arrested by groups of
garda during dawn house raids in February 2015, despite most of them
telling garda they would make themselves available for interview at any
time. Some of the mens children witnessed their arrests, which the
defence described as over the top and heavy-handed.
Several other accused persons are still before the courts facing various
charges from the protest, including violent disorder and criminal
damage. In October 2016, a 17-year-old boy was found guilty of false
imprisonment of the two women.
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. Larry Goodman must have a dog capable of biting .
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.
Its as simple as that.
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!
The jury has asked to rewatch the helicopter video evidence.

June 29th 2017
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.
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.
This wont be reported in the media - so everyone needs to share this.
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/
Minister Zappone caught out in her lies
Jobstown Not guilty

Now drop ALL the charges
20th June) at 10:30am, the closing arguments will be heard in the

Jobstown Not Guilty case. It's EXTREMELY important that people
come down in numbers at this critical point to show their solidarity
with the Jobstown defendants - to defend our right to protest!
We are expecting the jury to be back for the closing arguments, and
the judge's charge from Wednesday of this week. We want to have
the courtroom packed out for then. So if you can, please do what you
can to get down to court on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday
(or all four!).
It's the Criminal Courts of Justice beside Phoenix Park and it's in
Court 13. You don't need anything special to get in - it's a public
court!
JOBSTOWN TRIALS VERDICT EXPECTED TOMORROW.
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.
Garda denies conspiracy to

pervert course of Jobstown
trial
Defence claims superintendent provided false statement
and gave misleading evidence
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 Garda superintendent has denied being part of a

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at a trial
relating to events at an anti-water charges protest in
Tallaght.
Solidarity TD Paul Murphy and six other men are charged
with falsely imprisoning former tnaiste Joan Burton and
her advisor Karen OConnell by restricting their personal
liberty without their consent on the Fortunestown Road in
Jobstown on November 15th, 2014.
The men deny the charges at Dublin Circuit Criminal
Court.
The two woman were allegedly trapped in a Garda car and
subsequently a garda 4x4 for up to three hours by a crowd
of water protesters after they had attended a graduation
ceremony.
Superintendent Daniel Flavin rejected suggestions by the
defence that he had made a false or inaccurate
statement to garda - after the protest, or that his evidence
in court had been incomplete or misleading.
Sean Guerin SC, representing Paul Murphy, suggested the
superintendent was part of a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice, a suggestion the witnessdenied.
Stones and eggs thrown
The superintendent was also asked by Mr Guerin whether
he was trying to get a charge preferred against Mr
Murphy by the DPP.
Absolutely not, replied Supt Flavin.
After giving his evidence, the superintendent was asked to
read his original statement over lunch and reflect whether
he had left anything from it out in his evidence to the jury.
Following the lunch break, Supt Flavin read an extract
from his statement to the court, as follows: I saw Mr Paul
Murphy addressing the crowd of protestors, now
numbering several hundred, through a megaphone. He
was chanting and as a consequence of what he was saying,
the protestors became more animated and aggressive.
Missiles began to be thrown at garda-; I observed sticks,
stones and eggs being thrown, missing the jeep and hitting
garda.
Supt Flavin denied that this statement was in effect

blaming Paul Murphy for the violence, saying rather that
Mr Murphy had played a significant part in the events.
Was all the violence attributable to him? Absolutely not,
to be fair to him, added Supt Flavin.
But he told the court he believed Mr Murphy had control
of the crowd and they were responding to his actions.
When questioned as to why he had omitted this part of his
statement in his evidence, Supt Flavin said it was just one
part of it and there was a lot more happening.
Everybody at risk
The superintendent said his priority on the day was
getting the two victims, the two women in the car out of
the area, and ensuring the safety of everyone present.
Everybody there was at risk, he said.
He said he felt he had made a fair statement and an
account of all the facts as he recollected them.
A video was played to the jury showing Paul Murphy
addressing the crowd through a loudhailer and saying that
there were two options, either to let them go in half an
hour () or we just keep her here.
A woman is then seen taking the megaphone, introducing
herself as a resident of Killinarden, and saying, to loud
cheers from the crowd: I vote that we keep Joan here all
night. Shes on our turf now and shes staying.
South Dublin County Councillor Michael Murphy is then
seen taking the megaphone and telling the crowd, I dont
think staying here is an option.
Cllr Murphy also told the crowd, Weve done what we
came to do, and proposed allowing the 4x4 passage to the
Tallaght bypass.
Let her go
Supt Flavin insisted that he had heard Paul Murphy say in
one of his addresses to the crowd, Will we let her go, or
will we keep her here all night?
However, he accepted that there was a lot more said in

the video footage of the incident.
He agreed the video showed Paul Murphy and Michael
Murphy raising their hands when the councillor put a
second vote to the crowd proposing that they slow march
the then-tnaistes car to the bypass.
He further agreed that what Cllr Murphy told the crowd
was the assistance you (the Garda) needed to clear the
area, and that this ultimately is what happened.
Mr Guerin said that if there was no video footage, the
unfortunate Mr Paul Murphy would have a hard time
persuading the jury that the garda werent telling the
truth.
He also said it was not the first time that a Garda witness
had come to court and failed to give evidence that was in
their statement.
Separate footage was also played to the court showing Cllr
Murphy pushing a garda in the chest with both hands and
hitting the bonnet of the Garda 4x4 with the flat of his
hand repeatedly.
Frank Donaghy, another of the accused, was also seen in a
YouTube still, with the flat of his hand above the bonnet.
Garda Laura Loughley identified both men and said they
were banging on the patrol car.
Very dangerous
She said that at one point she was caught between the
pillar of a gateway and the 4x4 and that a member of the
public pulled her out of that crush, adding that the
crushes were very dangerous.
Mr Murphy (34), together with South Dublin Councillors
Kieran Mahon (39) and Michael Murphy (53) and four
other men, are charged with falsely imprisoning Ms
Burton and her adviser Karen OConnell.
Paul Murphy of Kingswood Heights, Tallaght; Kieran
Mahon of Bolbrook Grove, Tallaght; Michael Murphy of
Whitechurch Way, Ballyboden, Dublin; Frank Donaghy
(71) of Alpine Rise, Tallaght; Ken Purcell (50) of Kiltalown
Green; Michael Banks (46) of Brookview Green, Tallaght
and Scott Masterson (34) of Carrigmore Drive, Tallaght
have all denied the charges.
The trial continues before Judge Melanie Greally and a
jury of seven men and five women.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-
law/courts/criminal-court/garda-denies-conspiracy-to-
pervert-course-of-jobstown-trial-1.3089658?mode=amp
THIS IS LOOKING VERRY BAD FOR OUR JUSTICE

SYSTEM IN IRELAND TODAY . REGARDING THE RIGHTS
TO PROTEST . AND THE RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF
SPEECH . FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT
ALL THESE MEN HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PROTEST AND
ALSO HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEACH .
IN OUR COUNTRY IN THE IRISH REPUBLICK . NO
MATTER WATH THE SUBJECT IS ABOUT .SUCH AS
WATER CHARGES PROTEST . ETC. THIS IRELAND OF
OURS IS TURNING INTO A POLICE . STATE . YOU HAVE
SIX MEN IN COURT TODAY WHO ARE STANDING UP
FOR THOUSINGS OF PEOPLE . FIGHTING FOR A GOOD
CAUSE . AND FIGHTING TO KEEP THERE FAMILY'S
TOGHTER . ALL BECAUSE THEY EXPEESSED THERE
RIGHTS . TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND.THE RIGHTS
TO PROTEST ON OUR BEHALF . THEY. THESE SIX MEN
HAVE GIVING UP EVERY THING ON OUR BEHALF . AND
COULD END UP IN PRISON . ALL BECAUSE JONE
BURTON . TURND UP ON THE SAME DAY . SHE NEW
THERE WAS A PROTEST THERE BECAUSE THE GARDA
WOULD HAVE TOLD HER BUT STILL SHE INSISTED ON
GOING TO THIS IRISH SCHOOL . IF I WAS THE GARDA
IN CHARGE I WOULD HAVE TOLD THINGS COULD
GET.OUT OF HAND AND ADVICE HER TO COME
ANOTHER DAY BUT THE GARDA IN CHARGE OF
SECURITY DID NOT PUT THIS POINT TO MISS BURTON .
OR DID THEY YOU WOULD THINK SHE WOULD BE
WORRIED ABOUT HER ONE SAFTY FIRST AS A
MINISTER . ALL THESE MEN THAT ARE IN COURT
TODAY ARE INNISENT . THEY ARE INTITLED TO
EXPRESS THERE FREEDOM OF SPEECH . AND THEY
HAVE EVERY RIGHTS TO PROTEST . THIS COUNTRY OF
OURS IS TURNING INTO A REAGIEEM FOR THE POLICE .
WE ARE NOT IN CHINA AND NOT IN JAPAN AND OTHER
COYNTRYS WHO DON'T ALLOW THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST . THE GARDA
HERE SHOULD EASE OFF AND LET THE PEOPLE SPEEK .
WATER IS FOR LIFE AND NOT FOR THE FAT CATS IN
THE E U . AND SEARTNELY NOT FOR THE FAT CATS
HERE . ALL THESE 6. MEN ARE INNICENT . FULL STOP .
Charges against
Jobstown defendant
Ken Purcell dropped
Updated / Monday, 12 Jun 2017
Ken Purcell leaves the court with his wife

Charges against one of seven men accused of the
false imprisonment of former tnaiste Joan Burton
and her adviser during a water charges protest in
2014 have been dropped.
The decision followed legal argument by lawyers for
50-year-old Ken Purcell from Kiltalown Green in
Tallaght.
Prosecuting Counsel Sean Gillane told Judge
Melanie Greally the Director of Public
Prosecutions was not proceeding with the
prosecution of Mr Purcell.
Judge Greally told the jury there had been a
development in the trial following a ruling earlier
today.
She discharged him from the indictment and said he
was free to go.
There was clapping in court and Mr Purcell shook
hands with the remaining defendants before leaving
court with his wife.
The remaining six defendants have pleaded not guilty

to falsely imprisoning Ms Burton and Karen O'Connell
in Jobstown in Dublin on 15 November 2014.
The defendants are Solidarity TD, Paul 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.
The trial is now in its seventh week.
The jury was told the prosecution evidence is now
complete and the trial will be in legal argument for a
number of days.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2017/0612/882131-jobstown/
Joan Burton had a damn cheek to go anywhere near Tallaght on that
day after the brutal austerity she and her right wing Labour Party had
forced on working class communities. Nobody has made the point that
she brought this on herself through stupidity and/or arrogance. But
that's how thick she was - casually strolling out to Jobstown where she
was not wanted and was absolutely hated by most people. Burton,
Howlin and the rest of the Austerity Party live in cloud-cuckoo land.
They are in politics ONLY for the money, that's why they are now trying
desperately to re-invent themselves as "socialists" to stay on the gravy
train
Judiciary are under siege again at the behest of a

shameless populist
A row has been simmering between the executive and judicial branches
of government for some time, writes Alison OConnor.

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
Can yes not just do what is right
Remember this and do a bit of research
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
Can yes not just do what is right
Remember this and do a bit of research
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.
What a pack of Cunts!

SOLIDARITY TD PAUL Murphy and five other men have been found not guilty of
falsely imprisoning former Tnaiste Joan Burton and her adviser during a 2014 water
charges protest.
The jury of seven men and four women returned the unanimous verdicts today after
just over three hours of deliberations.
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.
Water charges movement a deeply divisive project as if that is something sinister. All
movements are deeply divisive projects. The suffrages was a deeply divisive project between
those who wanted votes for women and those who didn't, the civil rights movement was a
deeply divisive project between those who wanted votes for black people and those who
didn't, the abolition movement was a deeply divisive project between those who wanted to
keep slavery and those who wanted to get rid of it. What those who cry about divisiveness
really lament is that they have lost the argument, but they can't see that their argument was
wrong so they put it down to the ignorant masses who don't know what is in their best
interests. They cry about social media and fake news. Why stop there though? Surely the
printing press is a greater evil? What about literacy? Isn't it terrible that people can read at all!
They could be reading dangerous false ideas that don't come from the elites. What happens
then. Next they will be voting for the wrong parties and thinking the wrong things and doing
the wrong things. The horror!
CORRECTION... CORRECTION - PERJURY CAN BE PROSECUTED. See Perjury Act,

as amended.
https://www.academia.edu/.../PERJURY_IS_PROSECUTABLE_IN...
PERJURY IS PROSECUTABLE IN IRELAND

'LABOUR REBUILD'?!
Brendan Howlin, the patron saint of impossible causes .
Jobstown Verdict: Six defendants found not guilty;
Paul Murphy demands full inquiry
Solidarity TD Paul Murphy is demanding a full independent inquiry into
the Garda investigation of the Jobstown protest after his acquittal
yesterday.
By Daniel McConnell
Political Editor
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
Bar Councils unconstitutional attempt

to reduce its own transparency
obligations
19th March 2017
At the 2016 A.G.M. the Bar Council proposed significant changes to the
Constitution of the Bar of Ireland and to the Disciplinary Code in two catch-all
motions. The proposals included the removal of Rule 22(d) which obliges the
Bar Council to report the business of Bar Council meetings to the general bar
within one week. The first proposal was made despite Rule 53 of the
Constitution which requires motions to amend the Constitution be put to an
Extraordinary Meeting and not the A.G.M. The second proposal suffers the same
constitutional infirmities. Furthermore both proposals contravened the notice
requirements of Rule 13.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
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/
The 'haphazard state' of perjury law

Sat, Apr 26, 2003, 01:00
AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Email App
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
THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS IN

IRELAND ... You may, of course, come
to Ireland l egally, including for the
purpose of seeking employment,
provided
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/THE%20
IMMIGRATION%20PROCESS%20IN
%20IRELAND%20050509.pdf/Files/T
HE%20IMMIGRATION%20PROCES
S%20IN%20IRELAND%20050509.pdf
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION
PENAL CODE. TITLE 8. OFFENSES ... OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER ... judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other ..
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 PROSECUTABLE IN IRELAND

Perjury has the potential to destroy entire families and
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.
Defenses to Perjury Charges
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.
Making a mistake or remembering facts inaccurately is not an intentional misstatement, so if a

defendant successfully argues that he simply made an error he cannot be found guilty of perjury. It
tends to be difficult for a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the misstatement wasn't
just a mistake, so this defense is often successful.
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
TD questions Bar Councils role in

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill
Many barristers made representations to their TDs to the effect that the Bars
nominee to the Judicial Appointments Commission might be better made by the
Bar as a whole rather than the Bar Council. This theme was clearly presented by
Clare Daly TD to the Joint Committee on Justice & Equality in January this
year. The relevant section of the Bill is 7 (3) (a).
TD questions Bar Councils role in

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill
https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/8216/b8216d.pdf
The unconstitutional practices of the Judicial Service ... Service Commission is
bound by the Bill of ... Bar Council v Judicial Service Commission .
The unconstitutional practices of the Judicial Service
Commission under the guise of judicial
transformation: Cape Bar Council v Judicial Service
Commission [2012] 2 ALL 143 (WCC)
MK Radebe
LLB LLM by coursework (University of Pretoria). Lecturer in Law, School of Law,

University of Pretoria. Email: keneilwe.radebe@up.ac.za
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.
Keywords: Judicial recommendations, rule of law, accountability, transparency,

public functionaries, rationality, legality, just administrative action, arbitrariness.
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.
2 The facts of the case
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 unsuccessful candidates who were supported by the applicant were

acknowledged by the respondent's spokesman as "excellent in terms of technical
experience". The answering affidavit records that "there is no dispute that the
candidates represented by the applicant are fit and proper and appropriately
qualified persons".4
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.
3 Analysis of the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment
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.
According to section 8(1) of the Constitution the Judicial Service Commission is

bound by the Bill of Rights.
Section 195 of the Constitution requires that public administration be governed

by the democratic values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, including
principles that it must be "accountable" and that "transparency must be
fostered".
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:
(a) Applicability of the rule of law principle
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.
(b) Transparency and accountability as requirements for just administrative

action
In order to assess whether a public functionary has exercised public functions in a

rational and non-arbitrary manner, it is required of such a functionary to exercise
such functions in an open and accountable manner.
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
4 Consequences and criticism of the Judicial Service

Commission's conduct
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
No public functionary is immune to the Constitution and most importantly to the

principle of the rule of law. Every organ of state exercises its powers in terms of
the Constitution, and is therefore automatically bound by the Bill of Rights and in
this case, the duty to render just administrative action. The applicant's right to
administrative justice was infringed in this case as it were not provided with
reasons. Such reasons would have enabled the applicant to evaluate whether or
not its application had been carefully considered by the Judicial Service
Commission.
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.
The Judicial Service Commission's main function is to make recommendations of

appropriate and qualified candidates for judicial appointment. That is the power
that it has been granted in terms of the Constitution. Its failure to make further
recommendations when qualified candidates were available raises the question as
to whether their decision was rational. What was the Judicial Service Commission
seeking to achieve when it failed to make the recommendations? The failure of
the Judicial Service Commission to provide reasons for its conduct created a
reasonable impression that their decision not to make any judicial
recommendations was indeed irrational. The important lesson to be learned is
that applicants will have the right to have the Judicial Service Commission's
conduct reviewed if such conduct is thought to be irrational and thus against
constitutional principles.
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)
Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transnational Metropolitan

Council 1999 1 SA 374 (CC)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of the

Republic of South Africa 2000 2 SA 674 (CC)
Phato vAttorney-General, Eastern Cape 1995 1 SA 799 (E)
President of RSA v M & G Media Limited 2011 4 BCLR 363 (SCA)
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
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Internet sources
Rabkin F 2013 No 'reverse racism' in appointing udges

http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/law/2013/04/16/no-reverse-racism-in-
appointing-judges-says-mogoeng
accessed 10 May 2013]
Smuts I 2013 The Judiciary: Do White Males Not Need Apply?

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/
politicsweb/en/page716197oid=368104&sn=Marketingweb+detail
accessed 10 May 2013
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SAJHR South African Journal on Human Rights
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.
5 S 174(2) of the Constitution of the Repubicc of South Africa, 1996.
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.
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 .
INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF JUDGES ...

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training9chapter4en.pdf
IBAHRI and the Council of Bar and Law

Societies of Europe 2002 , Ireland is
Unconstitutional.
Uploaded by Rita Cahill on Jun 30, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/352623877/ibahri-and-the-council-of-bar-
and-law-societies-of-europe-2002-ireland-is-unconstitutional
People have risen and won't be put back in
their box': Jobstown supporters hail a political
victory
Dozens of supporters celebrated with Paul Murphy and others, assured
that their right to protest has been protected.
June 30, 17
DOZENS OF PASSING cars beeped their horns. A large

crowd chanted in unison, waving signs proudly on a grey,
wet day beside Dublins Phoenix Park.
Alongside the crowd, a media scrum waited on the steps of
the Criminal Courts of Justice. After nine weeks of evidence,
a jury took just over three hours to find Solidarity-PBP TD
Paul Murphy and five others not guilty of falsely
imprisoning former Tnaiste Joan Burton and her advisor in
their car on 15 November 2014.
The trial lasted two months but the result felt like it was
years in the making for the defendants.
For supporters of Murphy and the other men involved, it
dates back to the beginning of the movement against water
charges in Ireland years before a movement that has seen
Irish Water bills all but eliminated from the country.
For the crowds gathered this was about the working class
telling the establishment that it had the right to protest.
They said it was all about saying, No, were not going to
take it and, You cant stop us from protesting about it.
As a jubilant Paul Murphy, Councillor Mick Murphy,
Councillor Kieran Mahon, Frank Donaghy, Scott Masterson
and Michael Banks exited the court to rapturous applause,
the overwhelming sentiment from these men and their
supporters was that the establishment had tried to take on
and silence a working class protest, and failed.
Jobstown protest
Even in a climate of people protesting forcefully against
austerity and water charges, the events of 15 November 2014
particularly garnered a lot of attention.
As TheJournal.ies report at the time outlined, the then-
Social Protection Minister Joan Burton, and her advisor
Karen OConnell, were confined in a car for several hours.
Anti-water charge protesters focussed their attention on the
Labour leader at around 1pm as she attempted to leave a
graduation ceremony at An Cosn a higher education
college in Jobstown.
During the trial, the prosecution argued that 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 the event.
The trial heard that when Burton attended the church
ceremony that day, eggs and water balloons were 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.
View image on Twitter
Follow
Paul Murphy @paulmurphy_TD
Joan Burton blocked in by peaceful protesters in
Jobstown. #nowatercharges #wewontpay
1:01 PM - 15 Nov 2014
Source: Paul Murphy/Twitter
At one point garda moved in and unsuccessfully tried to

remove the accused men, pulling off Paul Murphys top in
the process. Burton and 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 prosecution submitted that by surrounding the cars
containing Burton and 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.
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.
Judge Melanie Greally echoed that sentiment in her final
instructions to the jury earlier this week, when she told its
members that they must weigh up the evidence given by
garda as being inconsistent with the video footage, and
make their own judgement on why that would be the case.
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.
Submit your clips to video@thejournal.ie

Stay up to date with all of the latest videos by subscribing to our
channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/thejourna...
Download our free iOS app: https://itunes.apple.com/ie/app/thejo...
Download our free Android app https://play.google.com/store/apps/de...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGNnqbwSyOU
The Labour Party's statement on the Jobstown Show Trial not guilty
verdicts is laughable. " ... Their statement reads 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, Howlin
and Burton know that's a complete lie. After Austerity Joan's Jobstown
humiliation there was a meeting between them, Kenny, Fitzgerald and
senior garda and they decided to go after and destroy the Jobstown
protesters. They hoped to make an example of them and to make it
impossible for citizens of this state to take part in peaceful protests. At
the time (November 2014) Fine Gael's main sponsor Denis O'Brien was
in financial difficulties and he needed anti-water protesters cleared off
the streets so that he could install water meters and rake in a few
million Euro to pay his banks. The Gang of Four (Kenny, Noonan,
Howlin, Burton) also needed the meters installed so that they could sell
off Irish Water. That is why the full weight of the forces of the state was
deployed, no expense was spared, THEIR media were alerted to dawn
raids by armed garda, the object being to demonize the anti-water
campaigners. Frances Fitzgerald was a key link between the politicians
and the DPP/Garda.
They NEARLY got away with it, but they failed because were let down
by liars and perjurers - those people that Fitzgerald & Nirn O'Sullivan
are so keen to protect. How much longer can these two tainted failures
remain in office?
Pre-recorded an interview for Drivetime. Will be used this evening but will
almost certainly be edited. Still asking do we not accept Joan B was frightened
etc. Told Mary Wilson june 29th 2017
https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-
2/19571094_109997742960176_6901764839807385600_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIi
OjMwMCwicmxhIjo1MTIsInZlbmNvZGVfdGFnIjoic3ZlX3NkIn0%3D&rl=300&vab
r=59&oh=8edb7c3a04d492c093ffd3133359d8a9&oe=5956EDF3
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar
warned by Fianna Fail
that more controversies
could spark General
Election
Fine Gael Leader Leo Varadka
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.
Appearing on RTEs The Week in

Politics, Mr McGrath said: The trust is definitely damaged.
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

Jobstown Acquittals, Jury Trials Under Strain

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jobstown Acquittals, Jury Trials Under Strain

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jobstown acquittals, jury

trials under strain

By harnessing social media on such a scale,

A video was introduced by Solidarity reporter Dave Murphy.

Garda want ban on people

Antoinette Cunningham, of the Association of Garda Sergeant

The 39th AGSI Annual Delegate Conference begins in Killarney this

Speaking to RTE Radio One's Morning Ireland, Association president

"It can bring significant risk and stress," she added.

Association president Antoinette Cunningham said this finding was

Mr Justice Peter Charleton.

According to correspondence seen by this newspaper, the whistleblower

The whistleblower was attached to a highly sensitive section known as the

There are allegations:

A serving garda was arrested based on false information being submitted as

In February, he agreed an out-of-court settlement with An Garda Sochna

A Garda spokesman last night said the allegations will be examined by a

"The original allegations referred to have been referred to the designated

"An Garda Sochna is committed to co-operating fully with the Disclosures

On June 29th 2017, the verdict was delivered in the Jobstown

Was this a lot of tweets from a very

#JobstownNotGuilty Key Daily Spikes in

What did people share? What were

Is their any other measure of

Stand behind these guys Everyone has the right

and International political figures

5:54 AM - 14 Apr 2017

What does this mean for social

For further information, email info@olytico.com

Jobstown: Six cleared

Defendants in the Jobstown trial Paul Murphy TD (left) and Cllr

Fitzgerald denies that

Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald.

Tnaiste Frances Fitzgerald has rejected as "quite simply untrue" claims by

The Solidarity TD called upon Ms Fitzgerald, who was replying to Dil

Water protest case: Action ill-advised

Mick Caul @caulmick

The vote on Fortunestown Road

Joan Burtons evidence

No Garda investigation. Larry Goodman must have a dog capable of biting .

Its as simple as that.

The jury has asked to rewatch the helicopter video evidence.

This wont be reported in the media - so everyone needs to share this.

Minister Zappone caught out in her lies

Jobstown Not guilty

20th June) at 10:30am, the closing arguments will be heard in the

Garda denies conspiracy to

A Garda superintendent has denied being part of a

Supt Flavin denied that this statement was in effect

However, he accepted that there was a lot more said in

THIS IS LOOKING VERRY BAD FOR OUR JUSTICE

Ken Purcell leaves the court with his wife

The remaining six defendants have pleaded not guilty

The defendants are Solidarity TD, Paul Murphy, 34,

Judiciary are under siege again at the behest of a

Friday, June 30, 2017

Can yes not just do what is right

Remember this and do a bit of research

Can yes not just do what is right

Remember this and do a bit of research

What a pack of Cunts!

CORRECTION... CORRECTION - PERJURY CAN BE PROSECUTED. See Perjury Act,

PERJURY IS PROSECUTABLE IN IRELAND

Bar Councils unconstitutional attempt