Antiwar damage to property necessary and reasonable

by simon Sun Mar 30, 2003 19:06

Eoin, if that line of defence worked for those ladies in England who 'grounded a Hawk with a Hammer'surely it could follow through here. As I said I have not researched the Irish legal ends so I could be wrong. I stand behind your action.

best of luck,

by the brehon Sun Mar 30, 2003 19:16

Sure isn't it all based on the British imperial system ... down to the wigs and gowns ...

by the brehon Sun Mar 30, 2003 19:18

All in the hands of a bunch of jesuits from Clongowes and Belvedere .....

by Mike Sun Mar 30, 2003 19:19 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

Of course your laws may be different from ours on this point even though coming from a common tradition.

The onus of proving "guilt without doubt" refers to the ACT for which one is being tried.

Under certain circumstances, the defense stipulates to the facts of the case but raises issues which would be sufficient legal excuses (in other words, the act was done but in THIS instance, not criminal). Here the burden of proof does NOT lie with the prosecution to disprove the special circumstance but for the defense to convince the jury that one of these "exceptions" existed.

And I believe you will discover that the standard is NOT whether YOU believed such special circumstances were in effect but rather whether some mythical "reasonable person" in the same position would have done so.

Sorry

by iosaf Sun Mar 30, 2003 19:36

keeping an eye on the jesuits of Clongowes and Belvedere don't worry brehon law!
tis alright really.

by Lord Widgeridoo Sun Mar 30, 2003 21:18

You know, if a reasonable person might have possible believed that the cad shot by the soldier could have been about to throw a petrol bomb or even might have contemplating a bit of mischief, well then by golly the blighter deserved everthing he jolly well got ......

And even if he wasn't, the very fact that he was winged prevented him from causing any harm at a later date ... especially if he was dead .....

Rather simple really ....
Fiat injustitia, ruant coeli ....

And young fellow me lad don't just think that you'll get off the hook because you have a clever legal argument ...
Remember that many (if not most) of your Irish Free State "Justices" are political appointees that will kow-tow to the will of their political masters ....

As Shakespeare once said, robes and furred gowns hide it all - thank god for that - it would be an ugly sight otherwise ........

by Eoin Dubsky Sun Mar 30, 2003 22:41

As I said in the article above, I'm only talking here about the built-in provisions of the Criminal Damage Act (1991), not the common law defence of necessity.

The common law defence is still available to defendants here of course, same as it was to the Seeds of Hope - East Timor Ploughshares (the Hawk Jet action in England).

The Criminal Damage Act (1991) Section 6 only makes one "objectivity clause", and that is for the reasonableness of the action. In Irish law people aren't compared to hypothetical "reasonable persons" anyways.

by Eoin Dubsky Sun Mar 30, 2003 23:19

In Irish law, as in UK law the onus of proof lies with the prosecution, unless there has been a reversal of the burden of proof written into the particular law. If your charge sheet alleges that you did "without lawful excuse cause damage to a bright green robot war machine at Shannon Airport on April 1, 2003"... then the prosecution must prove in fact beyond a reasonable doubt that:
(a) It was you,
(b) It was a bright green robot war machine,
(c) It was damaged in Shannon Airport on that night, and
(d) That you had no lawful excuse to do so.

There are VERY FEW cases where the burden of proof is switched over to the defence. The prosecution can sometimes just as to amend the charge during the trial if they're having difficulty proving, say, that the robot was really "bright" green. But for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act they've got to deal with the "without lawful excuse" bit.

In fairness to Insp. Tom Kennedy, who lead the state's case against me in Tulla District Court in December for the Hercules action, he did try to cover some of Section 6(2) of the Criminal Damage Act to show I had no lawful excuse. His witnesses were each asked whether I had permission from them to enter the airport and damage the plane. They all answered no. That's where he stopped talking about possible lawful excuses though. In effect, there was really no case to answer at all.

by Sparks Sun Mar 30, 2003 23:34

Out of curiosity, I would be interested in seeing what the court thinks of using the Neuremberg statements on the duties of the individual to disobey national law in pursuance of international law.

by Eoin Dubsky Mon Mar 31, 2003 00:39

If you're bringing up a defence which wasn't built into your charge (e.g. not "lawful excuse" for an alleged offence under the Criminal Damage Act) then the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, for example, anyone before the courts for a speeding charge (strict liability - no lawful excuses built-in, you either did it or not) could just say "well maybe I blacked-out" and the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant hadn't in fact blacked-out (defence of non-insane automatism).

See the RTF document at the link below (tip: open in a new window) for more on this in UK law, which is not unlike Irish law.

by USA all the way Mon Mar 31, 2003 00:46

coz you are.........USA all the WAY! 40000 more on the WAY!

by Intransigent Mon Mar 31, 2003 01:24

Who'd have thought it, Way and Way both rhyming? Now it's time for you to go away. That's right far away!

by Daithi Mon Mar 31, 2003 14:57

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/13/we_341_01.html

by Gregory Carson - SP Mon Mar 31, 2003 18:42

This proposed action of yours can only result in the further alienation of workers from any possibility of strike action. Stop this sabotage of the IAWM.

You would be better off staying at home if this is your intentions.

by Omar Ahmed - SWP (personal capacity) Tue Apr 01, 2003 01:25

"This proposed action of yours can only result in the further alienation of workers from any possibility of strike action. Stop this sabotage of the IAWM."

Sorry I had to see it again. Are you trying to tell me that direct action is going to scare workers away? Is this how far out of tune the SP have become from 'the workers.' How many workers did we see on the last demonstration. Not too many. How many middle class liberal peace loving do-nothings did we see. I counted most of the crowd as in that camp. Have you guys been so sucked in by electoral politics and feeding workers economic issues because you believe that they do not understand political ones? Is the SP on it's way back to reforming old ties with Labour because they have certainly compromised any politicis that may have been considered more left. The SWP has compromised far too much of its own politics to suit the IAWM aswell. But have Labour budged, no! If you were really in tune with how the working class at the moment are viewing the anti war movement they see it as comprised of middle class peace lovin hippies who like to prance around use fancy words on stage and then do nothing to back those words up. Therefore I take it from your little comment that you view Direct Action as bad. Are you going to condemn the actions of Mary Kelly, the Catholic Workers and that Dubsky guy? You may not agree with the elitist action. I certainly don't but would never condemn them for it. Quite the opposite. If this is the general view in the SP then I'm not surprised that I see the SP in it's current state. Do your members know no other way than introducing the party than "Socialist Party Joe Higgins TD"??? This is not a sectarian swipe. I just want some hard answers to some very simple questions. Where is it that you boys really stand on direct action?

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Apr 01, 2003 01:38

Firstly I want to preface this by saying that I'm not a member of the IAWM and have never tried to sabotage that organization.

To the issue of possible strike action. At present there is no economic argument being put forward for non-cooperation with US military flights at Shannon Airport (do you have one?). Put simply the argument goes: You refuel, you get paid... You don't refuel, you just get hassle, maybe even get fired. There is the moral and legal argument too for non-cooperation with murderous criminals of course, but it hasn't tipped the balance yet.

If we added another variable, it could strengthen the argument for strike action within the Airport. If we pledge to disrupt business as usual until there are no more US military flights, then the balance of coercion will be made somewhat fairer at least. If we make participation in this war so costly and intolerable (by nonviolent means only - means make ends) that it becomes a non-option THEN we're getting somewhere. :-)

by pc Tue Apr 01, 2003 16:41

this was posted elsewhere but to back up the point

direct action may be best done by those who act entirely alone so as not to have to worry about damaging the cause of any organistion

i think is what they meant....

by gillies macbain Tue Apr 15, 2003 20:59 cranagh at eircom dot net county tipperary.

yes it is best to act alone. i am on a criminal damage charge ( paint ). i said to the thurles anti war group - i will resign from the group and continue to meet you as individuals, to avoid any possible embarrassment. best way.

also - why go into court to win ? if you are prepared to lose you are very strong. ( you still plead not guilty to get in your say.) if you can persuade or inspire others, the gaols will soon be full. they nearly begged me not to go. another 15 convictions might overwhelm limerick - and they can't leave you on a trolly in the corridor, either.

go in the tipperary way ?

signed :
the suirside bomber.

by Eoin Dubsky Sun Apr 25, 2004 00:54

If you raise the point in your defence that you acted with a lawful excuse then the prosecution need to prove that you didn't in fact have an excuse, if the court is to find you guilty of criminal damage under the Act. I said earlier that I thought they needed the highest standard, i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt", but I have since been told my a few lawyers that they only need the lesser "proof beyond the balance of probability".

You're entitled by law to hear from a district cour judge, if he finds you guilty of an offence, what the reason for hist judgement is. If he refuses you can have the judgement quashed by the High Court. If he explains and it sounds like he's misguided himself in law, again you can take it to the HC.