Strange goings on in a Mayo court

mayo | rights, freedoms and repression | news report

Friday January 11, 2008 21:51

by éirígí - éirígí

Three natural resource activists tried in Belmullet court

Wednesday’s (January 9) trial of three men in Belmullet district court, county Mayo was a mixture of the farcical, the bizarre and the downright sinister. The article below features extracts from a more comprehensive piece which can be accessed in its entirety at

http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest110108.html

The three, Dominic McGlinchey (Derry), Rab Jackson (Belfast) and Cathal Larkin (Cork), were in front of the court on charges arising out of a Shell to Sea protest on November 9 last year.

Garda witness after Garda witness were grilled by defence solicitor Alan Gannon, who successfully exposed contradictions, inaccuracies and unusual levels of forgetfulness from the state witnesses.
Some of the most notable points of the day included:

- The fact that the second most senior Garda on duty on the day of the protest did not know how many Gardai were under his command. The same Garda confirmed that he had no training in the handling of public order situations.

"Inspector Byrne outlined how he used the Public Order Act to direct the protesters engaged in the sit-down protest to return to the other side of the carriageway. He then ordered the unknown number of Gardaí who were under his control to start removing protesters from the road. When asked what professional training he had in relation to the handling of public order events or of sit-down protests Byrne conceded that he had none."

- The inability of the Garda prosecuting Rab Jackson to recall many of the details of the day and his denial of his being drunk at the time of the protest.

"As the cross-examination of Garda O’Keefe continued for close to an hour, his answer of “I don’t recall” began to take on a mantra-like quality. For example, while admitting that he had seen a Garda operating a video-camera mounted on a stick, O’Keefe was unable to estimate how far away he himself was from this camera. He was also unable to confirm or deny that he had pushed some protesters into a ditch on the opposite side of the road to which the sit-down protest was occurring. Similarly, O’Keefe couldn’t estimate how many protesters he had personally removed from the road. While conceding that many of the protesters had repeatedly rejoined the sit-down protest, the witness was unable to estimate how many had actually done so or answer why it was that he arrested only one of them – Rab Jackson.

While denying that his lack of recollection was due to the fact that he was drunk at the time of the protest, O’Keefe admitted that he had “two pints” in Roscommon on the evening prior to the protest."

- Rab Jackson's explaination for travelling to the protest in Mayo

"While Rab accepted that he had sat down on the road and thus blocked the path of the Lennon Quarries vehicle, he believed that he had just cause in doing so given the risk to human health and safety that the Shell refinery represented. He expanded, stating that as an Irish citizen he believed it was the correct thing to do. "

- The confirmation by a Garda that he had made comments to Dominic McGlinchey relating to his assassinated parents

" When it was put to Philips whether he had said to the accused while in Belmullet Garda station that “you have your mother’s eyes and your father’s stubbornness,” he confirmed that he had. When asked by the defence did he not consider such a remark to be insensitive he responded by saying that he didn’t and it was said in the context of the accused being “chatty”...."

"...Alan Gannon pursued the issue, asking the witness whether he had known Dominic’s mother. Philips replied that he had not. When asked how he could possibly see Mrs McGlinchey’s “eyes in the eyes of her son,” Phillips replied that he could remember what she had looked like from a photograph he had seen in a publication. Quizzed as to when he had last seen such a photo Philips replied “15 or 20 years ago,” although he was unable to tell the court the name of the publication or any other details about the photo."

- Dominic McGlinchey's assertion that he had been arrested by a different Garda then one presented to the court as the arresting Garda.

"He also rejected the suggestion that Garda Philips was the arresting officer, instead stating that the two Gardaí that had arrested him were considerably younger then Philips. Dominic went on to state that the first time he had seen Philips was in the Garda van where he was detained prior to being transported to Belmullet Garda station."

- The questions of Judge Devins to Dominic McGlinchey relating to whether he knew a named individual whose name had not been mentioned at any point during the proceedings and had Dominic himself travelled to the protest with this named individual

"Having firstly asked the accused how he had come to hear of the protest the district court judge then went on to ask Dominic did he “know Brian Leeson?” When Dominic confirmed that he did indeed know a Brian Leeson, Devins asked had he travelled to the protest with him."

A full account of the proceeding in Belmullet ditrict court can be read at

http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest110108.html

save preference

Comments (7 of 7)

Other cases up in court

by Rudiger

Sat Jan 12, 2008 19:22

On Wednesday, 9th January 11 people appeared in Belmullet in Shell to Sea related cases.

The first case up was the issue of a woman who was involved in the Shramore lock-on but was unable to attend the previous court due to illness. On the 14th, Judge Devins had questioned the validity of the doctors cert supplied and had issued a bench warrant for the woman’s arrest. The woman had contacted Belmullet garda station in advance and arranged to meet the gardaí outside the court. In her evidence, the lady confirmed that she had been ill but was willing to do the community service that was initially given as sentence. Judge Devins accepted her explanation and sentenced her to 100 hours community service (3 month jail in default).

Next up for sentencing were Bob Kavanagh and Terence Conway who had been found suitable for community service in relation to the van lock-on on Bellanaboy Bridge. In making her order initially Judge Devins sentenced Bob Kavanagh to 100 hours (3 month jail in default) in relation to the Section 6 charge(breach of the peace) and 50 hours (1 month jail in default) in relation to the Section 9 charge (blocking free passage of vehicles). Following the judge making her order, Alan Gannon, Mr Kavanagh's solicitor made a representation to the judge due to the fact that the maximum allowable punishment for a Section 9 Public Order offence is a €253 fine. Judge Devins was most displeased with Mr Gannon regarding this representation, feeling that he should have brought this issue to her attention before she made her ruling. She said she would revisit the issue later after she stated that this was “not how most solicitors behave in this jurisdiction”.
Following dealing with some other cases, Judge Devins returned to the case and this time made the order against both Mr Kavangh and Mr Conway for the 100 hours for the Section 6 and took into consideration the Section 8 & 9 charges. It seemed to me that Judge Devins in fact made two rulings regarding Mr Kavanagh and never over-ruled her earlier sentence.

The next issue discussed were a number of charges that have been issued against Maura Harrington over the last 2 months. It seems that since Ms Harrington first appeared before the court on the 14th November, that the Gardai has applied for several summonses against her in relation to a number of charges. To be honest, I must admit I was slightly confused about what was going on, but it seems that I wasn’t the only one. At one point, Judge Devins stated that she didn’t “know what’s going on. They’re appears to be irregularities … It’s muddying the waters”.
Judge Devins attempted to summarise the charges as she saw them. These are as follows
- Section 6 & 19 (obstructing a Guard) charges relating to an incident outside the Civic offices in Belmullet on 21st April 07.
- A dangerous driving offence dating from the 30th May 07.
- A Section 6 (breach of the peace) charge relating to Pollathomais Pier on the 11th June 07.
- A driving without driving license or insurance charge relating to the 25th June 07
And finally a new charge that came to the attention of Alan Gannon, Ms Harrington’s solicitor the day before the court
- A Section 2 assault (a technical assault) again relating to Pollathomais Pier on the 11th June 07.

Sgt Dermot Butler was questioned with regard to this charge and to why this charge wasn’t dealt with while dealing with the Section 6 charge that relates to the same incident and why it was only appearing before the court now. Sgt Butler stated that he completed his investigations into the incident on the 9th August and handed the case file to his Superintendent, and that it was forwarded on to the DPP at the end of October. The DPP then wrote back to see if the allegation had been put to Ms Harrington. Judge Devins expressed her surprise at this saying that it would be unusual if an accused persons comment would stop a charge from proceeding. Sgt Butler said he then rang Ms Harrington on the 30th Oct whereupon she replied “Don’t you dare speak to me about what happened in Pollathomais. You’re only trying to interfere with the complaints that were made against you”. He stated that he had approached her previously at Bellanaboy but she wouldn’t talk to him. Judge Devins then questioned why the case file had sat on the Superintendent’s office for 3 months before proceeding with it. Prosecuting officer, Superintendent Gilligan then stated when offenses occur they are dealt with individually.
Supt. Gilligan then stated that there was no form of orchestration by the State. Following this, Mr Gannon read out all the summonses that he had received for his client, (which was quite a list) some of which seemed to be for the same charges. He finished off by saying that he still wasn’t sure how many charges his client was facing. Supt. Gilligan admitted there was confusion but stated that Mr Gannon reading out the list in such a manner was ‘not very helpful’. Judge Devins stated that it seemed that several sets of summonses had be reapplied for. She stated that she was accepting the new (Section 2) summonses with reluctance but said that if any other summonses from roughly the same time period are applied for she will look upon them with “extreme disfavour”.
Alan Gannon sought to revisit an application he made to Judge Devins on the 12th of December when he sought a stenographer (which his client would pay for) to record the proceeding of the cases involved. He stated that Ms Harrington was very anxious to have a record of what the State alleges against her in particular given all the new confusion involved. He stated that he had been instructed to take the matter further if his application was not granted. Judge Devins snapped back “Why didn’t you do that?” and stated that a summary of convictions could be dealt with by a competent note taker. Having to witness the sheer amount of Gardai incompetence and contradictory evidence, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take this farce seriously. All the summonses were adjourned until the 12th of March.

The case involving the 4 men and the 7 minutes of missing Garda video footage was adjourned until Feb 13th to give time to some video experts to examine the tape.

The case of the 3 protestors arrested on the 9th of Nov has been dealt with by eirigi so I will just add that I too thought some of the garda evidence was dubious to say the least. I would also agree that the questioning by Judge Devins on the identity of Brian Leeson and other who traveled with Dominic McGlinchey was sinister as it had no bearing whatsoever that I could see on the case.

The proceedings of last Wednesday was very worrying. I believe that I witnessed numerous cases of Gardai lying on the stand and it remains to be seen whether they get away with it.
In a case totally unrelated to Shell to Sea, it took a summonses for a drink driving case 17 months to be served. This occurred even though one of the Gardai who was to have served the summonses had drinks with the man who was to receive the summonses on a number of occasions. The evidence of 2 of the Gardai conflicted with each other, but this was glossed over and the case was dismissed.

If Gardai are allowed to get away with lying or can simply state “I don’t recall” to any tough question then they will surely just continue to do it.

detailed report

by cable

Sat Jan 12, 2008 13:27

The report on the eirigi link is good and well-detailed, but didn't the picture of the protestor in the ditch beside a lone polka-dot wellington come from a previous protest at Ballinaboy? Just a quibble, but it's better for eirigi to be more correct in every detail than Gardai, who are losing public trust. Is the Garda Ombudsman Office independent of Gardai, & have they any executive power?

strange it is

by Chrissie

Sat Jan 12, 2008 13:15

Strange it is for anywhere outside Mayo. Having witnessed the proceedings of this court, I've to report that it's not so very unusual behaviour in Belmullet courthouse (although the remark made to Mr McGlinchey by Garda Philips in this report is particularly undiplomatic). It was embarrassing to be present at such a show, and with people of other nationalities; what they make of the Irish Justice system is beyond surmise.

Husband and Wife?

by Political Judicary?

Sat Jan 12, 2008 00:01

The judge in question wouldn't happen to be the same Mary Devins that is married to Fianna Fail TD and minister for state Jimmy Devins would it?

This is big stuff

by Very Odd

Fri Jan 11, 2008 23:57

I'll put you out of your suspence Matlock. The judge will give judgement in Feburary. You were right not to read it if you are a bit tired because the article is fairly long. The stuff about mcglincheys parents is as someone else has commented off the wall. All the more off the wall that the cop admitted to saying it in open court!!

But the bit that I think needs a bit more explaination relates to the questions asked by the judge. To read the article it appears that she asked a most peculiar question relating to who mcglinchey travelled to the protest with. First she asked him did he know brian leeson and then she asked him did he travel with him to the protest (he's the eirigi chairman by the way).

Again I'm only going on what is in the article (which is admittedly posted on the eirigi website) but it seems she didn't ask him any other questions relating to how he travelled to the protest or with whom before she asked him out straight had he travelled with leeson. Seems strangely psychic of the judge to ask this question given that mcglinchey and leeson did travel together, most particularly given that the judge appears to have been the first person to mention leesons name in the court.

Would it not have made more sense to ask him had he travelled with one of the co-accused? or even to ask him did he travel alone or with others?

Maybe someone that was also in court could back up what's in this story or maybe explain what happened in more detail??

What was the verdict?

by Matlock

Fri Jan 11, 2008 22:29

Too tired to read it tonight.

Bring him to the ombudsman!

by Outraged

Fri Jan 11, 2008 22:03

Have just read the whole article on the link above. If the report is accurate it reads like a cross between a courtroom in a banana republic and kilnascully. The comment by the cop relating to dominic mcglinchey's dead parents is bizarre beyond belief. If ever there was a case for the garda ombudsman this must be one. No space for the cop to claim he never said it!!

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Strange goings on in a Mayo court

Comments (7 of 7)