MayDay 2004 Arrestee has his case dealth with finally.

One of the last of the MayDay 2004 Arrestee's to have his day in court had the charge against him struck out.

On 19th April 2005 in Court 46 in the Bridewell the hearing against the protester was due to take place.

The accussed was charged under section 6 of the 1994 Criminal Justice Act, (Public Order), which state's,

'' 6.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.''

The defendent was pleading not guilty and at all time's had mainted that he was innocent. After his arrest he was remanded into custody and had spent four day's in CloverHill Prison. Once released he had had to sign on daily in his local Garda station for two months under his terms of bail. An application to the High Court had to be made to have this reduced. The arresting Gard agreed to signing on once a week but a solicitor representing the Director of Public Proecutions asked for three times a week. An agreement of the acussed signing on twice a week in a Garda station was reached.

Before the start time it looked as if the case was going ahead with the arresting Garda and some of the witnesses for the prosecution, including at least one high ranking Garda, present. When the case was called and the Judge learned that the case could take up to two hours with seven prosecution witnesses and two defence she was most displeased saying that she did not have time to deal with it in that sitting and that it should be 'A Court50 matter' because she could only give a maximum of twenty minute's to each hearing.

She was then postponing it till possibly as late as October even with the defense barrister's pleas that a witness had been flown over from the UK to give evidence. While the judge apolgised for having to do so she said that she couldn't deal with on that occasion and that the court should have been notified of all the facts.

Then a solicitor from the Chief State Solicitor's Office representing the Director of Public Prosecution's arrived and made applicatiion to the judge to withdraw the charge. The judge granted this and made the comment that the matter ''had gone from nine witness' to nothing'', striking the case out. The defense Barriste's later reply to this was that ''some one had finally read the brief and realised the they were going to get creamed because they had no evidence''.

So after eleven and a half month's the case against the young man was dropped with only a nod from the Gard and without even an apology for the trouble the accussed and his family had been put through from any of the parties involved in the prosecution.

Womble30313 would like to extend his grattitude to his family, G, friends, cellmates, prisonmates and all those who offered him support for all they did for him.