Shell to Sea cases 10/10/07

mayo | miscellaneous | news report Friday October 12, 2007 17:33 by whoeva

account of Belmullet court hearings on 10th october

Court in Belmullet today saw the case of Terrence Conway and Bob Kavanagh who stopped work at Bellanaboy for seven hours through the use of a lock on tube attached to the underside of a car http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83416. It also saw the return of the case of John Moynahan accused of assaulting a Garda on the day of the election which had been heard the previous month (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84199).

The proceedings began once again with counsel for the defence asking Judge Devins to disqualify herself from presiding over the cases. He cited an open letter to the President of the District Court from Shauna Gillian an Irish barrister asking to ensure that an alternative judge is allocated to sit at Belmullet District Court. In the letter Gillian states that, ‘Judge Devins has crossed the Rubicon from “apparent” to “actual” bias [against Shell to Sea campaigners]’. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84214 He also made reference to her conduct at a previous hearing where she stated that she recognised all the faces in the room as belonging to Shell to Sea supporters and where she also accused a man of “eye-balling” her when he sat at the front of the courtroom in the only available seat. It was clear that she had anticipated such queries about her impartiality as she then proceeded to read from a pre-prepared statement wherein she conflated criticism of her impartiality with intimidation. “when a judge is subjected to intimidation in an effort to remove her, if it is harmful to her security she may remove herself. The intimidatory behaviour will then be seen to have worked. I don’t think a reasonable person would perceive bias….” this went on for some time. Basically she was saying that her judgements were sound, that she had been intimidated (not that anyone has seen evidence of this) and that she would not be bullied. The cases would continue with her in charge. One other Shell to Sea related case was briefly mentioned- the case of Ed Collins who was thrown into a ditch by Gardai then accused of assault himself. This was put back until the 12th of December.

Bob Kavanagh and Terrance Conway's case was then heard. Both men were charged with two points under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act, obstruction of the highway and obstruction of vehicles, section 6 of the Public Order Act, abusive or threatening behaviour (or behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace) and section 8 - failure to obey the orders of a gard. The prosecution's case involved the use of ony two witnesses - the arresting officers, Sergeants Walsh and Gill. Athough the prosecution initially tried to to claim that there had been aggression towards the Guards, under cross examination both prosecution witnesses admitted that this had not been the case. It was also claimed that their behaviour had been ‘reckless’ as described under section 6 and could therefore have led to a breach of the peace. The Garda witnesses tried to make case that drivers were angered by the obstruction. However, they had failed to bring anyone as a witness to verify this claim. During cross examination Gannon, solicitor for the two men, said the garda had only produced two witnesses and had made no effort to find more, eg ambulance crew, fire brigade, road users and therefore Garda could not speculate about what these witnesses might have said had they taken the stand. He also bought into question the number of charges against the defendents, referring to DPP guidelines on not overcharging people. Furthermore the Gards had asked neither of the men whether they had lawful authority or reasonable excuse in taking such action.

The defense's case began with Bob Kavanagh in the witness box. He described the atmosphere as very relaxed "more relaxed than normal where there's a lot of garda aggression. It was one of the most passive protests, it was not our intention to enrage the Gards” -"But you did this with no authority!"Kavanagh responded that he acted out of concern for the “health of residents, the ecology of the area. Local fears of the potential for an explosion and ongoing pollution. We prevented work on the site that day to highlight the ongoing injustices. The injustices continue so the protests will continue. We would rather not do this previously the protests were on Shell land but they were moved from the Shell refinery because of the Garda operation. Ideally the refinery should be shut down...” The judge shut Bob down before he could finish.

When cross-examining him the prosecution asked him repeatedly if he could have unlocked himself. Kavanagh replied that he couldn't have because after a short time his hand had gone numb. Before he was asked to unlock himself he didn’t try, so he didn't know if it was possible then. He was asked why he hadn't told the gardai of his lawful excuse for being there. He replied that he felt court was the appropriate place to voice this.

It was then time for Judge Devins to ask him some further questions "What expertise do you have in the area of ecology or pollution? " Kavanagh replied that he felt it wasn't necessary to have a formal qualification as he had read extensively about the issues. "If the Gardai had left you there, what would you have done?" He replies that other Shell to Sea protesters would have helped to free them, calling ambulances or the fire brigade if necessary. Terrence Conway replied that his motivations were much the same as Mr Kavanaghs but he made specific references to the deteriorating quality of water. When asked by Judge Devins about his knowledge of matters of ecology? Conway responded that he had no formal training but had ‘proof’ from Mayo County Councils figures of ongoing pollution of Carrowmore lake. He also has a copy of an initial letter of complaint about water pollution from Mayo County Council to those responsible. He stated that whilst the figures demonstrated an ongoing problem in relation to water pollution the council had gone quiet about the issue after the initial letter and had effectively covered it up.

In summing up the counsel for the defence pointed out that the gardai were not suggesting that there was any insulting behaviour. The case for section 6 relies on behaviour being ‘reckless’ in terms of how other road users would respond to it, yet no road users were asked to testify. There would be "no hope for society if we assume people will cause a breach of th peace when a road is blocked as roadworks, carnivals etc have a similar effect".
The case for section 9 regarding lawful excuse was also mentioned - his clients believed there was a risk to others and so were entitled to take whatever action was necessary to stop work on the site to protect other people the evidence given regarding Mayo County Councils figures on water quality supported this. The prosecution maintained that they were guilty on all counts. There was no lawful excuse as there was no reason given at the time. Judge Devins said she would consider the matter and give a decision on the 14th of November.

Further submissions in the case of John Monaghan were then heard briefly. Witnesses to the event had still not been produced by either the defence or prosecution. The prosecution produced legislation which they said demonstrated the entitlement of gardai to be present at polling booths. Judge Devins pointed out that she recognised points within the same legislation that were not up to date and that it was therefore old legislation and had since been amended. The prosecution was told to produce the details from current legislation in Westport on the 18th of October.