Jobstown trial: role of politics debated during lengthy case

Directly opposing views of the importance or otherwise of politics to the charges brought against the Jobstown accused were expressed by the prosecution and the defence during the trial.

The prosecution said politics had nothing to do with the charges that were before the courts while much of the defence argument was focused on the constitutional rights of assembly and expression, and the threat that a guilty verdict could pose to the right of people to hold political leaders to account.

The directly opposing points of view meant that the charge from the judge to the jury on the point was of particular interest. The judge in a criminal trial has the final say on matters of law.

Judge Melanie Greally, in her charge to the jury, was very clear that while there was a constitutional right to expression and assembly, there was also a constitutional right to liberty.

The right to protest, even if peaceful, could not be exercised at the expense of the right to liberty, or any other right for that matter, she said.

Paul Murphy’s counsel, Sean Guerin SC, referred to Charles Stewart Parnell and Daniel O’Connell when saying that Ireland had a history of the authorities criminalising people who were leading peaceful protests the authorities did not find convenient.

Political protest

He told the jury that they had not only to make a decision as to the guilt or otherwise of his client, but also make a decision that would impact on the rights of all citizens in terms of political protest.

“By your verdict you will fix the limits of our freedom to hold our leaders to account,” he said.

But Judge Greally said there were already limits on the right to protest and that the function of the jury was to assess whether a crime had been committed and whether there was enough evidence against each of the accused to justify a conviction. It was not the jury’s role to send out any message, she said.

The offence of false imprisonment arises when a person’s liberty is restricted without their consent. There is no minimum period of time required, but the restriction must be total.

Prosecution counsel Sean Gillane SC argued that the jury had to decide, given the facts of the case, and the law, whether then tánaiste Joan Burton and Karen O’Connell had been falsely imprisoned and whether any of the accused were guilty of the offence.

Protesters

The State’s charge was that the accused acted in a joint enterprise. The two women had given evidence that they had not felt free to exercise their liberty to go where they pleased, because of the way the vehicles they were in were surrounded by the angry water charges protesters.

Judge Greally said that the jury would have to decide if there was a reasonable escape route for the two women which would not have exposed them to danger. The judge said the jury had to assess, in relation to each of the accused, whether they had been party to a joint enterprise with the intent of bringing about the total restraint of the two women. They should focus on the evidence, and ignore the politics of the case.

There was one caveat to this, in that she said the jury should assess whether the establishment had set out to cast Murphy’s role in a particular light.