Dublin residents say they won't harass water workers

Nine Dublin residents who were last week restrained by the High Court from assaulting, harassing, intimidating or interfering with workers installing water meters, today gave a judge an undertaking that they would not get involved in any such protests.

But Mr Justice Anthony Barr rejected a demand by the nine that the court vacate its restraint against anyone else with knowledge of the making of the court order.

Judge Barr said he accepted the undertaking given to the court by solicitor Con Pendrid, for the nine defendants, but would continue the injunction against any other individual or party who had or was given knowledge of it.

Jim O'Callaghan, SC, counsel for GMC Sierra Ltd which is installing the meters on behalf of Bord Gais, said every citizen had a democratic right under the constitution to peaceful protest.

He told the court that if the injunction applied only to the nine then tomorrow another nine and on Friday a further nine could take part in intimidation and harassment of workers.

Mr O’Callaghan said that when Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy had made his order on Friday the court had been shown a number of videos taken at various sites throughout Dublin districts 5, 9 and 13, including Raheny, Coolock and Kilbarrack.

The court had heard that there were incidents of headbutting and other assaults on workers who had been seriously intimidated in the carrying out of the installations.

Mr Pendrid told the court his clients denied having been engaged in any violence or intimidation against any workers and were willing to give an undertaking to the court in return for the withdrawal of the existing injunction.

He said his clients did not wish the “addendum” to the injunction, restraining anyone with knowledge of the making of the court order, to remain in place and he asked on their behalf that it too be discontinued.

Judge Barr said he was delighted progress had been made in talks between the parties but said that until the next date of hearing he would allow the secondary addendum restraint to remain in place.