Application of Niall Harnett for consent to record proceedings for transcription. 12th December 2007 I, Niall Harnett of Doonagore, Liscannor, Co Clare, the defendant in this case, make application to this court for consent to record the proceedings in this case, using digital audio recording technology, for the purpose of making and keeping a written transcript of the proceedings in this case. I make this application on a number of Grounds. 1) Established in Article 34.1 of Bunreacht na Éireann, the Constitution of Ireland, it is a requirement that “Justice in the courts … save in special and limited cases … shall be administered in public“. This is to ensure that the ‘administration of justice in the courts’ is a matter for the public record, where members of the public are legally entitled to witness such court proceedings. In this way court proceedings are naturally recorded in the minds of people using their own natural and internal faculties of sight, hearing and memory. Members of the public such as writers and journalists, for example, also use extra tools and technology, such as the paper and pen to aid memory and improve the accuracy of the public record. The administration of justice being a matter of public record is a standard principle of any democracy. The constitution recognises this. Digital audio recording technology is simply a new tool to aid memory and improve the accuracy of the public record. 2) Stenography. As I understand it, due to the nature of offences and cases heard in a court of summary jurisdiction, it is considered both an unnecessary requirement and prohibitive expense for the courts service to employ stenographers as a matter of course in the district court. Alternatively, it is open to a defendant, such as myself, to employ a stenographer if I feel it is necessary or helpful to my case to have a true recording of the proceedings. In this situation, a defendant such as myself is entitled to the extra facility of a stenographer, over and above the entitlement of a member of the public for example, to use a stenographer to aid their memory of proceedings. Here the court recognises that the right of a defendant to a true record of proceedings, extends even further than the constitutional rights of the public. But … and it’s a big but - this automatically raises a problem of inequality and disadvantage in the court, through no fault of the defendant. In fact, where the ‘district court protocol’ makes no provision for stenography as a matter of course, it is a consequence of that district court practice that personal finances now become the defining factor as to whether or not a defendant, such as myself, is able to employ a stenographer privately. Unless the court is able to address this issue of personal finances with regard to stenography, (as it attempts to do with regard to legal aid), then the court is accepting the unacceptable - inequality and disadvantage, where “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”, according to Article 40.1 of the constitution. Therefore, I submit that the court is obliged to address this situation with regard to this application. 3) I say, that in my case and circumstances, it is financially prohibitive for me to employ a stenographer. 4) As a defendant who is representing myself in court, which brings disadvantages of its own, I submit that it is not enough for me to rely on my own memory or the written notes of myself or my friends, in the very tense situation of a courtroom, to provide an accurate record of all that is said and decided in my case, where so much depends in law, on 1) what is said, and 2) the memory of what is said. 5) I submit also that it is a fault of the district court that many things that are said are quickly forgotten and lost into the ether, and many things are often remembered and given sensational prominence and importance outside of the often lost context, or a recorded transcript had there been one. 6) With regard to Garda evidence, I suspect that the Garda giving evidence against me intends to perjure himself. I suspect that perjury is the only evidence that he’ll be offering to deprive me of my good name and character, and to criminalise me. In that case I intend to take a civil case against the state and against the Garda in his personal capacity, should his perjury be displayed and exposed. Having a record of this case will help to prove my subsequent case and save a lot of bother for the court that has to deal with it. It could even save the Attorney General from wrongly deciding to represent a member of An Garda Síochána who was not acting in the line of duty. Conversely, to be judged innocent in this court without a record of all that has occurred, would not prove my case for perjury leading to a violation of my Constitutional and civil rights, a malicious prosecution and a breach of contract in any following matter. This would obviously be unfair to me, and the courts are not supposed to exist to bias against the innocent or to prevent the truth from emerging. 7) The European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10.1 says that “the right to freedom of expression shall include freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers“. And as I have said, it is my intention to transmit the full findings of this court to the High Court where any civil matter arising out of this case will be heard. 8) Finally, any audio recordings made will not be made with the intent to publish. I will offer a written transcript to you Judge, for your signature, in order that it be fully authenticated and seen to be an official court document. ______ With regard to that, and to all the grounds that I set out in this application, I’m asking that this court recognise digital audio recording technology as a modern, efficient and legitimate means for a defendant to assist himself/herself in the memory and accurate recording of proceedings for transcript. And I ask you Judge, to accede to my application. Signed, Niall Harnett.