Closing Speeches Made in Irish Ploughshares Trial *Verdict Mon(J24) or Tues(J25)
Ploughshares Support | 22.07.2006 07:52 | Anti-militarism
The Pit Stop Ploughshares 5 - Deirdre Clancy(Dub), Nuin Dunlop(U.S), Karen Fallon(Scot), Damien Moran(Offaly) & Ciaron O'Reilly(OZ) are presently on trial at Dublin's historic Four Courts for the third time. They are charged with $U.S.2.5million "criminal damage without lawful excuse" to a U.S. Navy War Plane en route to the war on Iraq refueling at Shannon Airport on Feb 3rd. 2003. Closing Speeches to Jury began Thursday (July 20th '06)
An account of the submissions made by counsel for the prosecution and the defence before the jury.
Today's submissions were quite lengthy so this is necessarily an incomplete account of all that was said. Please add corrections and ommisisons as a comment.
Counsel for the defence and prosecution summed up their cases before the jury. The judge will summarise for the jury tomorrow and continue on Monday, at which point the jury will retire to consider their verdict. The prosecution got the day rolling with a lengthy submission from Mr Devally.
His main line of argument was that the defendants did not have a “lawful excuse” to commit the action. Under the law if a person charged with the offence has a lawful excuse for damaging property he or she will not be found guilty of criminal damage.
One of his arguments was that the accused did not just seek to directly impede the US military in its impending invasion but also sought to raise the consciousness of others as to what was happening in the Middle East. He argued that in this democratic society (sic) this was an incorrect way of effecting change. Either one could seek a ruling from the courts as to the legality of Ireland’s role in the war with regards to the use of Shannon or one could march in the street as on February 15th 2003 or one could lobby elected representatives to change the government’s policy and ultimately one could change the representatives at an election.
Counsel for the prosecution also attempted to downplay the importance of the testimony of the expert military witness that the defendants’ action could have saved life and property in Iraq. He argued that the causal chain was too difficult to understand and he introduced a scientific concept called chaos theory, the popular version of which states that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon could cause a hurricane in Florida. Similarly with regard to the actions of the accused it was difficult to say if they had any impact on the lives and properties of Iraqis.
The prosecutor laid before the jury various examples of what he considered would amount to lawful excuse (e.g. breaking into a burning building). He argued that the action of the defendants was not reasonable in the circumstances. There were other ways of acting on their honestly held belief that the US military's use of Shannon Airport should be halted, such as requesting the police to intervene or the government to take appropriate action.
There were three separate submissions from three barristers acting for the defendants. They differed considerably in style.
A theme running through the day was the emphasis on the right of the accused to the presumption of innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defence to prove innocence. If the jury have a genuine doubt, it doesn’t even have to be a massive doubt, as to the guilt of the accused (in any criminal case) they should acquit. This applies right across the board so if the accused put forward a defence, in this case that they had lawful excuse to damage property, then it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn’t. If doubt remains, then acquittal should follow.
As there was agreement on the basic facts of the case, the main arguments revolved around the issue of lawful excuse, though at times counsel were not averse to referring to wider issues such events in the Middle East in attempting to give context to their arguments.
The first submission from the defence argued that any wider issues such as whether the defendants hoped that their actions might contribute to the raising of awareness of the impending war, was not actually relevant to the charge as before the courts. The fact that they may have done so did not remove the defence that they also had lawful excuse under the law. That lawful excuse was that they honestly believed that their actions could help save a life and property in Iraq. He went on to argue that not only was their belief honestly held, but that their action was reasonable in those circumstances. The damaging of the infrastructure of war contributes to the lessening of the ability of that war machine. He gave the example of the German counter-offensive in Belgium in 1944 where the Axis forces’ counter-attack came to a halt due to a lack of petrol for their vehicles rather than a military defeat on the field. The importance of background infrastructure to a war should not be underestimated.
The second barrister for the defence adopted a more oratorical style and emphasised the intentions and courage of the accused and the destruction caused by war. He made frequent reference to the Bible, notably the Sermon on the Mount and its “Blessed are the peacemakers speech”, and said the defendants were attempting to practice in a sincere way their religious beliefs, beliefs to which many people pay nominal heed but is not always followed.
The third counsel for the remaining two defendants reverted to a more analytical approach and contested some of the prosecution’s core claims. It was noted that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants did not have lawful excuse. It is not for the defendants to prove that they did have it. He went on to argue why he considered the prosecutions case to fall short of ascertaining that level of confidence and that a jury must acquit if they had doubts.
He read back some of the prosecutions descriptions of the case which he claimed were classic indicators of doubt. For example, the prosecution had said that the defence’s evidence was strong and that the case was a difficult one to decide.
He noted that some of the prosecutions hypothetical examples of what would constitute a lawful excuse were inadequate to prove that this defence did not apply. For example, the prosecution repeatedly used the scenario of a burning house which a person damages in order to save life. The prosecutor had said this would be justified, but that this example was very different to the case being tried as one could not say that there was an emergency situation. The police or some appropriate body should have been called to deal with the situation. The defence counsel countered that the analogy was inappropriate as the Dail in 1997 had removed the word “immediate” from the legislation and that the prosecution’s reliance on emergency-style examples did not reflect accurately the case on trial. There was no imperative for the defence to show that their action was prompted by an immediate threat. He also rebutted an example of destruction of tobacco being exported to a country with no health warnings as being an inaccurate analogy to the case in hand.
The prosecution’s arguments, counsel for the defence submitted, did not impinge on the defendants’ right to rely on the defence of “lawful excuse”. While the prosecutor might think that it may open an appalling vista of posse-style justice, that was a matter that he or the Director of Public Prosecutions should take up with the Minister for Justice with a view to changing the law. The law as it stands, however, enables an accused of relying on the defence and so, it was argued, the prosecution had fallen short of inducing reasonable doubt on this issue.
Mr O’Higgins went on to challenge Mr Devally’s grasp of science and chaos theory. He referred back to the expert witness on military affairs. That expert had given evidence that there was a reasonable possibility actions of the accused could have saved life and property could neither be ruled in nor out. Counsel for the defence noted that the prosecution had not called any expert witness to counter this evidence, nor had they sought to challenge his testimony. The defence argued that as an expert witness could not rule out the reasonable possibility that their actions saved life and property, then the actions could fairly be said to be reasonable, and therefore the jury should acquit. This was so as it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not reasonable yet they had not challenged the expert witness nor brought their own expert witness to give evidence to the contrary.
It was also submitted that the great majority of legal opinion on International Law were of the view that the American-led war in Iraq was illegal and that while it wasn’t for an Irish court to decide that issue, it was an opinion worth bearing in mind when considering the actions of the defendants. It is in this context that one of the defendant’s statements make sense, namely, “I didn’t go to Shannon to commit a crime; I went to Shannon to stop a crime”.
Today's submissions were quite lengthy so this is necessarily an incomplete account of all that was said. Please add corrections and ommisisons as a comment.
Counsel for the defence and prosecution summed up their cases before the jury. The judge will summarise for the jury tomorrow and continue on Monday, at which point the jury will retire to consider their verdict. The prosecution got the day rolling with a lengthy submission from Mr Devally.
His main line of argument was that the defendants did not have a “lawful excuse” to commit the action. Under the law if a person charged with the offence has a lawful excuse for damaging property he or she will not be found guilty of criminal damage.
One of his arguments was that the accused did not just seek to directly impede the US military in its impending invasion but also sought to raise the consciousness of others as to what was happening in the Middle East. He argued that in this democratic society (sic) this was an incorrect way of effecting change. Either one could seek a ruling from the courts as to the legality of Ireland’s role in the war with regards to the use of Shannon or one could march in the street as on February 15th 2003 or one could lobby elected representatives to change the government’s policy and ultimately one could change the representatives at an election.
Counsel for the prosecution also attempted to downplay the importance of the testimony of the expert military witness that the defendants’ action could have saved life and property in Iraq. He argued that the causal chain was too difficult to understand and he introduced a scientific concept called chaos theory, the popular version of which states that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon could cause a hurricane in Florida. Similarly with regard to the actions of the accused it was difficult to say if they had any impact on the lives and properties of Iraqis.
The prosecutor laid before the jury various examples of what he considered would amount to lawful excuse (e.g. breaking into a burning building). He argued that the action of the defendants was not reasonable in the circumstances. There were other ways of acting on their honestly held belief that the US military's use of Shannon Airport should be halted, such as requesting the police to intervene or the government to take appropriate action.
There were three separate submissions from three barristers acting for the defendants. They differed considerably in style.
A theme running through the day was the emphasis on the right of the accused to the presumption of innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defence to prove innocence. If the jury have a genuine doubt, it doesn’t even have to be a massive doubt, as to the guilt of the accused (in any criminal case) they should acquit. This applies right across the board so if the accused put forward a defence, in this case that they had lawful excuse to damage property, then it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn’t. If doubt remains, then acquittal should follow.
As there was agreement on the basic facts of the case, the main arguments revolved around the issue of lawful excuse, though at times counsel were not averse to referring to wider issues such events in the Middle East in attempting to give context to their arguments.
The first submission from the defence argued that any wider issues such as whether the defendants hoped that their actions might contribute to the raising of awareness of the impending war, was not actually relevant to the charge as before the courts. The fact that they may have done so did not remove the defence that they also had lawful excuse under the law. That lawful excuse was that they honestly believed that their actions could help save a life and property in Iraq. He went on to argue that not only was their belief honestly held, but that their action was reasonable in those circumstances. The damaging of the infrastructure of war contributes to the lessening of the ability of that war machine. He gave the example of the German counter-offensive in Belgium in 1944 where the Axis forces’ counter-attack came to a halt due to a lack of petrol for their vehicles rather than a military defeat on the field. The importance of background infrastructure to a war should not be underestimated.
The second barrister for the defence adopted a more oratorical style and emphasised the intentions and courage of the accused and the destruction caused by war. He made frequent reference to the Bible, notably the Sermon on the Mount and its “Blessed are the peacemakers speech”, and said the defendants were attempting to practice in a sincere way their religious beliefs, beliefs to which many people pay nominal heed but is not always followed.
The third counsel for the remaining two defendants reverted to a more analytical approach and contested some of the prosecution’s core claims. It was noted that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants did not have lawful excuse. It is not for the defendants to prove that they did have it. He went on to argue why he considered the prosecutions case to fall short of ascertaining that level of confidence and that a jury must acquit if they had doubts.
He read back some of the prosecutions descriptions of the case which he claimed were classic indicators of doubt. For example, the prosecution had said that the defence’s evidence was strong and that the case was a difficult one to decide.
He noted that some of the prosecutions hypothetical examples of what would constitute a lawful excuse were inadequate to prove that this defence did not apply. For example, the prosecution repeatedly used the scenario of a burning house which a person damages in order to save life. The prosecutor had said this would be justified, but that this example was very different to the case being tried as one could not say that there was an emergency situation. The police or some appropriate body should have been called to deal with the situation. The defence counsel countered that the analogy was inappropriate as the Dail in 1997 had removed the word “immediate” from the legislation and that the prosecution’s reliance on emergency-style examples did not reflect accurately the case on trial. There was no imperative for the defence to show that their action was prompted by an immediate threat. He also rebutted an example of destruction of tobacco being exported to a country with no health warnings as being an inaccurate analogy to the case in hand.
The prosecution’s arguments, counsel for the defence submitted, did not impinge on the defendants’ right to rely on the defence of “lawful excuse”. While the prosecutor might think that it may open an appalling vista of posse-style justice, that was a matter that he or the Director of Public Prosecutions should take up with the Minister for Justice with a view to changing the law. The law as it stands, however, enables an accused of relying on the defence and so, it was argued, the prosecution had fallen short of inducing reasonable doubt on this issue.
Mr O’Higgins went on to challenge Mr Devally’s grasp of science and chaos theory. He referred back to the expert witness on military affairs. That expert had given evidence that there was a reasonable possibility actions of the accused could have saved life and property could neither be ruled in nor out. Counsel for the defence noted that the prosecution had not called any expert witness to counter this evidence, nor had they sought to challenge his testimony. The defence argued that as an expert witness could not rule out the reasonable possibility that their actions saved life and property, then the actions could fairly be said to be reasonable, and therefore the jury should acquit. This was so as it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not reasonable yet they had not challenged the expert witness nor brought their own expert witness to give evidence to the contrary.
It was also submitted that the great majority of legal opinion on International Law were of the view that the American-led war in Iraq was illegal and that while it wasn’t for an Irish court to decide that issue, it was an opinion worth bearing in mind when considering the actions of the defendants. It is in this context that one of the defendant’s statements make sense, namely, “I didn’t go to Shannon to commit a crime; I went to Shannon to stop a crime”.
Ploughshares Support
Homepage:
http://www.peaceontrial.com
Additions
Could eds.consider making this post a feature & we will report last trial daze?
22.07.2006 08:23
Would indy editors consider making this post a feature and we can update the rest of the trial & support as comment.
These 5 are a few days away from an histroic acquittal (the 10th. anniversary of the historic Seeds of Hope Ploughshares/ BAe Hawk fighter ready for export fell yeaterday Fri July 21st...that's gotta be a good sign?) or they are days away from serious jal time (max 10 year sentence). If it goes the way of jail we will post jail solidairty suggetsions on suggested feature.
Many thanx to those who sustained the solidarity vigil at the Irish Embassy in London (also those who have been in solidarity at Irish Embassies, consulates & sites of significance in this war in Warsaw, melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Washington DC, Belfast. Thanx to David Rovics who is gigging for us tonight in Dublin. Thanx to Mark Thomas, Martin Sheen, Donal O'Kelly, Kris Kristoffersen, Joan Baez,
O'Snodaigh Kila Boys, Ken Loach, Paul Laverty & other artists for coming out in support. Thanx to all the folks in Scot/Eng/Ireland who volunteered thir labour & donated cash to keep the five on the road over the past 3 1/2 years & 3 trials.
The five are weary of this war, but remain solid, thanx to the soldairty of independent media, activist communities & those inside inside and outside the military who are nonviolently reisting this war.
Mucho thanx
These 5 are a few days away from an histroic acquittal (the 10th. anniversary of the historic Seeds of Hope Ploughshares/ BAe Hawk fighter ready for export fell yeaterday Fri July 21st...that's gotta be a good sign?) or they are days away from serious jal time (max 10 year sentence). If it goes the way of jail we will post jail solidairty suggetsions on suggested feature.
Many thanx to those who sustained the solidarity vigil at the Irish Embassy in London (also those who have been in solidarity at Irish Embassies, consulates & sites of significance in this war in Warsaw, melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Washington DC, Belfast. Thanx to David Rovics who is gigging for us tonight in Dublin. Thanx to Mark Thomas, Martin Sheen, Donal O'Kelly, Kris Kristoffersen, Joan Baez,
O'Snodaigh Kila Boys, Ken Loach, Paul Laverty & other artists for coming out in support. Thanx to all the folks in Scot/Eng/Ireland who volunteered thir labour & donated cash to keep the five on the road over the past 3 1/2 years & 3 trials.
The five are weary of this war, but remain solid, thanx to the soldairty of independent media, activist communities & those inside inside and outside the military who are nonviolently reisting this war.
Mucho thanx
Ploughshares Support
Homepage:
http://www.peaceontrial.com
LINK-Revolt Video footage of Anti-War Reception for Jeb Bush in Dublin (Fri J21)
22.07.2006 08:33
RV
Homepage:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77396
LINK-Bishop of Clonfert Supports the Pit Stop Ploughshares
22.07.2006 10:44
Ploughshares Support
Homepage:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77405&comment_limit=0&condense_comments=false#comment160058
REPORT-Prosecution Closing Speech
23.07.2006 01:26
Mr Devally
He thanked the jury for their patience and said he had to make an apology at the outset. He had omitted to say that all accused in every trial comes with a Presumption of Innocence. The Judge told you about half way though the trial. It means that all accused of any crime are innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is very important because it means that it's up to the Prosecution to prove each element of the case and to negative every element of the Defence in all matters. This presumption of innocence goes all the way from the beginning to the end of a trial
The presumption is only displaced if and when the jury decide otherwise.
Mr Devally apologised for this omission and said that it probably had happened because of the unusual nature of this case. Usually there had to be debates about the facts of what had happened but here there was no dispute about the main facts - none of the five was saying "I wasn't there" and none of them was saying "I didn't know what I was doing". The accused admitted through their Statement of Faith that they did the action - there was no argument about this. So the sting of the Prosecution had been removed - it was an unusual case.
The jury has to deal with the facts of the case and there is not a great deal of controversy concerning the facts.: On 3 February 2003 all five defendants (named) entered Shannon airport, went to the hangar, erected a shrine, looked under a door to see a US Navy plane, smashed the glass to open the door, surprised the sole Garda present in the hangar, used a mattock and hammers to damage the plane - the jury would see the pictures of the damage caused.
Mr Devally said that what was in dispute - and the job of the jury to decide - was whether or not what they did amounted to an act of criminal damage, or whether they had a lawful excuse.
All four of us (he and the Defence Counsels) will do our best to explain the law, but the judge is the final person whose interpretation of the meaning of the law must be accepted.
The section of the Criminal Damage Act under which the defendants have been accused is:
In Section the words
"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
In the present case there is no question of the accused being reckless - they intended to do what they did.
The accused used different wording in giving their reasons. They all agreed on the wording “to beat swords into ploughshares.”
The operations man at Shannon airport gave evidence that no one had permission to enter there other than the Garda and the U.S. military and other such authorized persons. This is not in dispute.
The plane belonged to the U.S. Navy. This is not in dispute.
All that is left re this section of the charge is the question of lawful excuse. Do you accept from the evidence volunteered by the accused that they had Lawful Excuse? All the other elements of a crime are there.
The Criminal Damage Act 1991 states:
"A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse . . .
( c ) if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question .... in order to protect himself or another or property belonging to himself or another ... . and, at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence, he believed
(i) that he or that other or the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection, and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."
There were long hours of debate in your absence, and it wasn’t idle debate, as to how the Judge should guide your interpretation of the law.
Mr. Devally then said he would present his effort to help. He asked the jurors to consider whether or not the act was reasonable by imagining what was going on in the minds of the accused...was there a line there which if they crossed it, it would be unlawful...a line what’s going on in the minds…
There are subjective and objective facts or sets of circumstances. With regard to the subjective feature in assessing each one (we have their Statement of Faith)
you must give the accused the benefit of the doubt
In the subjective analysis you consider two things: (a) the circumstances as the accused believed them to be, and (b) was their action reasonable
(a) the circumstances as the accused believed them to be: There were very wide geopolitical factors involved. The use of Shannon Airport (for an impending war) They wanted to prevent an attack. They knew the plane had been already damaged by Mary Kelly
(b) the reasonableness of their action: their belief is that their act was reasonable because of the violent acts to be perpetrated in Iraq, that the plane at Shannon had a part to play in these acts and that there was no "legal" way open to them to stop these acts
That's the subjective test - what the accused believed to be the circumstances and reasonable
But we can still ask, for the objective task, was it reasonable?
We know that hey acted with great sincerity. Their conscience is not on trial. Their morals are not on trial
We’re not here to condemn their view.
Were their acts reasonable? Did they have reasonably held beliefs?
It’s difficult to disentangle lawful acts mores from actions that cannot be allowed
It's not offensive to suggest that the process that brought them to Kildare, what they heard there, (which we know) from the moving evidence of Kathy Kelly, suggests that they share a lot in common
But there are five trials for criminal damage to the door
There are five trials for criminal damage to the plane
They have been waiting for this trial for a long time, living in a black hole, never reaching a judge ….this has been hanging over them for a long time
(I never thought I would be giving this presentation in court!) They have been very patient
At the same time, they went through a process in Shannon airport that led to this
Prosecution represents DPP law office on behalf of the people. I have no axe to grind for the U.S. or George W. Bush, I’m acting for the DPP to prosecute a criminal act.
I’m one Senior Counsel) The accused have three. In fairness, hey could have had five and miffed the system.
Mr O’Kelly beguiles jurors and I’m afraid of him
Mr. Nix is the last of the great orators.
Mr O’Higgins is widely respected and acknowledged and very analytical.
And it is the right of the accused to have the best representation in a full trial
We should all be proud of this. This is a full and a safe trial
Now, in his evidence, Ciaron O’Reilly said The Statement of Faith was an explanation, not a justification. I have said that they were sincere, not a sham. Still,
I have challenged one aspect.
They are sincere
This is not a sham
But were they trying to do something more nebulous, something symbolic, something that was political ? Have we not heard this even from their own mouths, supported possibly by Kathy Kelly
They said they have a lawful excuse because the act was done to protect others. Was there a lawful excuse because the act was done to protect others?
On February 15 2003, people marched to avert war,I walked in a march, all those who marched were protesting in order to save lives, to avert war.
Those who marched were saying: “We don’t like this.” Irish public opinion said: “Please stop this war.”
The accused differed. One of them said, “If I save one life in Iraq it’s worth it.”. and told you under oath or affirmation "It was all I could do"
But that motivation is not a lawful excuse to damage property.
When they were asked, “Did you do this to save lives in Iraq?” their reply was, “Yes.”
But they also said other things to show their true belief.
Ciaron O’Reilly is an articulate man, he frustrated me, gave a lot of information regarding why he did what he did, …to save lives, but he also gave other motives as part of his evidence: He said it was a call to others to carry out non-violent resistance to war He believed Shannon could become a terrorist target. He wanted people to seriously reflect on nonviolent action He was putting out a call to others to take nonviolent action
He described the Catholic Worker commitment to face responsibility.
.
This is not a lawful excuse
If a building is on fire or about to be set on fire in my belief, I would have lawful excuse to smash the door even if it turned out (that the fire was harmless)
I could explain to the jury that I had a reasonably held belief
Suppose I have a political belief that smoking tobacco is an addiction that kills. I go to Dundalk and burn a shipment of tobacco bales before shipment to a third world country where they don’t have a health regime and can’t educate people about the effects of smoking. And I tell the Garda I was saving life
You may feel the action of the defendants was a call to arms to raise the conscience of the Irish people concerning what was happening in Iraq.
The circumstances include not just what they think of Madeleine Albright's (comment on the 500,000 children killed by sanctions in Iraq)
But also this is a democracy. We have a police, we have elected representatives. Our democracy, like all democracies, may be imperfect
The essence of a democracy is imperfection. History is littered with efforts to create a perfect state. Efforts to create perfect societies have led to fascism and totalitarianism.
(In a democracy) there are other things we can do. For example, We can be in NGOs. Indeed Ciaron O’Reilly works in a wet shelter. This must be very difficult work
Our case is that in their long distance intervention that may have saved lives somewhere, all five defendants (named) overstepped the line.
Ciaron O'Reilly broke the door broke the door because it was an emergency. Yet they went on a retreat for four days. This was a calculated act ultimately to avert a war. They took the law into their own hands
We live in a country that has law, a system, a vote, a voice. They said that’s not good enough, we will do something more. They had no lawful excuse. No emergency.
They made an eloquent statement
Damien Moran said he looked forward to being put on trial to test the conscience of the Irish people.
Where do we stop.?
(If someone is drunk and about to get into a car and you go over and assault the person in an effort to prevent him from getting in (and possibly killing someone) that would be reasonable.)
But that's not what happened in this case
In this case, the five have contributed to the action. .Your consciousness may have been raised during the trial.
Deirdre was asked about what would constitute success. She had replied that for her (it would have been) success if other Irish citizens had taken part.
This was her mission.
Kathy Kelly said the purpose of Voices in the Wilderness was to dramatize a challenge to economic sanctions. She described the horror of economic warfare waged through use of economic sanctions; she was here to show what she experienced and how she influenced the five; she gave moving evidence; she spoke of the strong responsibility we have to stop others from going to war…
All five were raising public opinion to stop others from going to war. This is laudable. But is it reasonable, N
It is not a lawful excuse
Each of the hammers has wording, that is making statements (I’m not here to condemn the five but to prosecute a crime) There is a list of other things too that were at the shrine. a Koran, a Bible, candles photos blown up - these are reverential but also making a statement
The five were influenced by Kathy Kelly and she quoted Madeleine Albright's dreadful comment about the children ....(A political statement)
….
Here is another example: people are locked in a room and degrading actions are being done to them I break the lock It turns out there were policemen present should I have asked the police first?
Ed Horgan brought an action to the Courts to prevent the government from using Shannon because he thought it was unconstitutional. Eoin Dubsky did similarly.
At least one of the accused knew of these actions. Not one of them went to a lawyer but had a view on what the law was. They said that the Irish Constitution didn't allow this (the use of Shannon airport by US military)
Only you can decide if it’s reasonable
They knew we have a democracy, a system
If there is criminal activity or threat (unless, as indicated, there is a burning building) we don’t set up checkpoints, vigilantes or posses or take law into their own hands.
What they did was very brave, hats off to them
They did what they did, they knew it was criminal . It was a conscience raising exercise And they looked forward to this trial
You must decide whether what they did falls on the wrong side of the line
Democracy does not allow people to take the law up into their own hands.
Rallying organization
A suicide bomber may feel zeal and a strong cause
The defendants are not driven to such extreme actions
They had time to reflect (four days)
The people who marched (in Ireland against the war in Feb 1993) didn’t burn down an Embassy.
The defendants have the best defence and they are entitled to it.
But they are self appointed individuals who are not delegated to decide what our law should be. In fairness to them, they also took on themselves
The five took it on themselves to face the consequences of what they did. They don’t hit and fllit They faced responsibility for their actions
You have a tough decision to make and I know you’ll face it
Final point: Dr. Jean Allain said that the war was an international crime He’s not relevant to the defence or the honest belief of the accused.defence
I would suggest that his evidence should not be a consideration as to what lawful excuse was
Were they there to save life or raise consciousness?
It is agreed that all four did give as their reason that they wanted to save life. They added other added other reasons such as having responsibility. showing solidarity, urgency and an act of prayer. One hoped that others would respond.. Another hoped their action would be a rallying call. Another spoke of breaches of international Law and divine law. Another hoped to save life and thought what she was doing was the only thing she could do.
Mr Devally said the jury had a difficult case; it was a difficult task
Regarding Mr. Oxley’s evidence, he had said that if five Iraqis took out a plane it would have been an act of war. It would have been a pre-emptive strike.
But the defendants were not Iraqi insurgents
He also said that you could not rule out or rule in the possibility that taking out a support plane could damage the enemy.
This reminds me of the Chaos theory and the butterfly effect – if a butterfly flaps its wings here (or if Mr Nix sneezes) it might cause a tsunami on the other end of the world.
Mr Oxley's reply means that you can' rule it out and you can't rule it in. That’s all he said. That means it’s a possibility, not a probability.
Mary Kelly had damaged a plane a week before. They were aware of it
I asked Ciaron O'Reilly if he was optimistic .(about the success of his action) and he finally acknowledged that he was expecting to be arrested
I asked him why he had said earlier that he wanted to put the war on trial, he said at that time ("War on Trial") was referring to a series of events that were happening around the city.
Ciaron O’Reilly whacked the plane. Karen Fallon did very little, but all had a common design and all accept responsibility
You must be rational, cool , not callous Don’t let your feelings get in the way. There was not an emergency. It is not for them to say that my Constitution should be interpreted as they saw it
He thanked the jury for their patience and said he had to make an apology at the outset. He had omitted to say that all accused in every trial comes with a Presumption of Innocence. The Judge told you about half way though the trial. It means that all accused of any crime are innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is very important because it means that it's up to the Prosecution to prove each element of the case and to negative every element of the Defence in all matters. This presumption of innocence goes all the way from the beginning to the end of a trial
The presumption is only displaced if and when the jury decide otherwise.
Mr Devally apologised for this omission and said that it probably had happened because of the unusual nature of this case. Usually there had to be debates about the facts of what had happened but here there was no dispute about the main facts - none of the five was saying "I wasn't there" and none of them was saying "I didn't know what I was doing". The accused admitted through their Statement of Faith that they did the action - there was no argument about this. So the sting of the Prosecution had been removed - it was an unusual case.
The jury has to deal with the facts of the case and there is not a great deal of controversy concerning the facts.: On 3 February 2003 all five defendants (named) entered Shannon airport, went to the hangar, erected a shrine, looked under a door to see a US Navy plane, smashed the glass to open the door, surprised the sole Garda present in the hangar, used a mattock and hammers to damage the plane - the jury would see the pictures of the damage caused.
Mr Devally said that what was in dispute - and the job of the jury to decide - was whether or not what they did amounted to an act of criminal damage, or whether they had a lawful excuse.
All four of us (he and the Defence Counsels) will do our best to explain the law, but the judge is the final person whose interpretation of the meaning of the law must be accepted.
The section of the Criminal Damage Act under which the defendants have been accused is:
In Section the words
"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
In the present case there is no question of the accused being reckless - they intended to do what they did.
The accused used different wording in giving their reasons. They all agreed on the wording “to beat swords into ploughshares.”
The operations man at Shannon airport gave evidence that no one had permission to enter there other than the Garda and the U.S. military and other such authorized persons. This is not in dispute.
The plane belonged to the U.S. Navy. This is not in dispute.
All that is left re this section of the charge is the question of lawful excuse. Do you accept from the evidence volunteered by the accused that they had Lawful Excuse? All the other elements of a crime are there.
The Criminal Damage Act 1991 states:
"A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse . . .
( c ) if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question .... in order to protect himself or another or property belonging to himself or another ... . and, at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence, he believed
(i) that he or that other or the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection, and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."
There were long hours of debate in your absence, and it wasn’t idle debate, as to how the Judge should guide your interpretation of the law.
Mr. Devally then said he would present his effort to help. He asked the jurors to consider whether or not the act was reasonable by imagining what was going on in the minds of the accused...was there a line there which if they crossed it, it would be unlawful...a line what’s going on in the minds…
There are subjective and objective facts or sets of circumstances. With regard to the subjective feature in assessing each one (we have their Statement of Faith)
you must give the accused the benefit of the doubt
In the subjective analysis you consider two things: (a) the circumstances as the accused believed them to be, and (b) was their action reasonable
(a) the circumstances as the accused believed them to be: There were very wide geopolitical factors involved. The use of Shannon Airport (for an impending war) They wanted to prevent an attack. They knew the plane had been already damaged by Mary Kelly
(b) the reasonableness of their action: their belief is that their act was reasonable because of the violent acts to be perpetrated in Iraq, that the plane at Shannon had a part to play in these acts and that there was no "legal" way open to them to stop these acts
That's the subjective test - what the accused believed to be the circumstances and reasonable
But we can still ask, for the objective task, was it reasonable?
We know that hey acted with great sincerity. Their conscience is not on trial. Their morals are not on trial
We’re not here to condemn their view.
Were their acts reasonable? Did they have reasonably held beliefs?
It’s difficult to disentangle lawful acts mores from actions that cannot be allowed
It's not offensive to suggest that the process that brought them to Kildare, what they heard there, (which we know) from the moving evidence of Kathy Kelly, suggests that they share a lot in common
But there are five trials for criminal damage to the door
There are five trials for criminal damage to the plane
They have been waiting for this trial for a long time, living in a black hole, never reaching a judge ….this has been hanging over them for a long time
(I never thought I would be giving this presentation in court!) They have been very patient
At the same time, they went through a process in Shannon airport that led to this
Prosecution represents DPP law office on behalf of the people. I have no axe to grind for the U.S. or George W. Bush, I’m acting for the DPP to prosecute a criminal act.
I’m one Senior Counsel) The accused have three. In fairness, hey could have had five and miffed the system.
Mr O’Kelly beguiles jurors and I’m afraid of him
Mr. Nix is the last of the great orators.
Mr O’Higgins is widely respected and acknowledged and very analytical.
And it is the right of the accused to have the best representation in a full trial
We should all be proud of this. This is a full and a safe trial
Now, in his evidence, Ciaron O’Reilly said The Statement of Faith was an explanation, not a justification. I have said that they were sincere, not a sham. Still,
I have challenged one aspect.
They are sincere
This is not a sham
But were they trying to do something more nebulous, something symbolic, something that was political ? Have we not heard this even from their own mouths, supported possibly by Kathy Kelly
They said they have a lawful excuse because the act was done to protect others. Was there a lawful excuse because the act was done to protect others?
On February 15 2003, people marched to avert war,I walked in a march, all those who marched were protesting in order to save lives, to avert war.
Those who marched were saying: “We don’t like this.” Irish public opinion said: “Please stop this war.”
The accused differed. One of them said, “If I save one life in Iraq it’s worth it.”. and told you under oath or affirmation "It was all I could do"
But that motivation is not a lawful excuse to damage property.
When they were asked, “Did you do this to save lives in Iraq?” their reply was, “Yes.”
But they also said other things to show their true belief.
Ciaron O’Reilly is an articulate man, he frustrated me, gave a lot of information regarding why he did what he did, …to save lives, but he also gave other motives as part of his evidence: He said it was a call to others to carry out non-violent resistance to war He believed Shannon could become a terrorist target. He wanted people to seriously reflect on nonviolent action He was putting out a call to others to take nonviolent action
He described the Catholic Worker commitment to face responsibility.
.
This is not a lawful excuse
If a building is on fire or about to be set on fire in my belief, I would have lawful excuse to smash the door even if it turned out (that the fire was harmless)
I could explain to the jury that I had a reasonably held belief
Suppose I have a political belief that smoking tobacco is an addiction that kills. I go to Dundalk and burn a shipment of tobacco bales before shipment to a third world country where they don’t have a health regime and can’t educate people about the effects of smoking. And I tell the Garda I was saving life
You may feel the action of the defendants was a call to arms to raise the conscience of the Irish people concerning what was happening in Iraq.
The circumstances include not just what they think of Madeleine Albright's (comment on the 500,000 children killed by sanctions in Iraq)
But also this is a democracy. We have a police, we have elected representatives. Our democracy, like all democracies, may be imperfect
The essence of a democracy is imperfection. History is littered with efforts to create a perfect state. Efforts to create perfect societies have led to fascism and totalitarianism.
(In a democracy) there are other things we can do. For example, We can be in NGOs. Indeed Ciaron O’Reilly works in a wet shelter. This must be very difficult work
Our case is that in their long distance intervention that may have saved lives somewhere, all five defendants (named) overstepped the line.
Ciaron O'Reilly broke the door broke the door because it was an emergency. Yet they went on a retreat for four days. This was a calculated act ultimately to avert a war. They took the law into their own hands
We live in a country that has law, a system, a vote, a voice. They said that’s not good enough, we will do something more. They had no lawful excuse. No emergency.
They made an eloquent statement
Damien Moran said he looked forward to being put on trial to test the conscience of the Irish people.
Where do we stop.?
(If someone is drunk and about to get into a car and you go over and assault the person in an effort to prevent him from getting in (and possibly killing someone) that would be reasonable.)
But that's not what happened in this case
In this case, the five have contributed to the action. .Your consciousness may have been raised during the trial.
Deirdre was asked about what would constitute success. She had replied that for her (it would have been) success if other Irish citizens had taken part.
This was her mission.
Kathy Kelly said the purpose of Voices in the Wilderness was to dramatize a challenge to economic sanctions. She described the horror of economic warfare waged through use of economic sanctions; she was here to show what she experienced and how she influenced the five; she gave moving evidence; she spoke of the strong responsibility we have to stop others from going to war…
All five were raising public opinion to stop others from going to war. This is laudable. But is it reasonable, N
It is not a lawful excuse
Each of the hammers has wording, that is making statements (I’m not here to condemn the five but to prosecute a crime) There is a list of other things too that were at the shrine. a Koran, a Bible, candles photos blown up - these are reverential but also making a statement
The five were influenced by Kathy Kelly and she quoted Madeleine Albright's dreadful comment about the children ....(A political statement)
….
Here is another example: people are locked in a room and degrading actions are being done to them I break the lock It turns out there were policemen present should I have asked the police first?
Ed Horgan brought an action to the Courts to prevent the government from using Shannon because he thought it was unconstitutional. Eoin Dubsky did similarly.
At least one of the accused knew of these actions. Not one of them went to a lawyer but had a view on what the law was. They said that the Irish Constitution didn't allow this (the use of Shannon airport by US military)
Only you can decide if it’s reasonable
They knew we have a democracy, a system
If there is criminal activity or threat (unless, as indicated, there is a burning building) we don’t set up checkpoints, vigilantes or posses or take law into their own hands.
What they did was very brave, hats off to them
They did what they did, they knew it was criminal . It was a conscience raising exercise And they looked forward to this trial
You must decide whether what they did falls on the wrong side of the line
Democracy does not allow people to take the law up into their own hands.
Rallying organization
A suicide bomber may feel zeal and a strong cause
The defendants are not driven to such extreme actions
They had time to reflect (four days)
The people who marched (in Ireland against the war in Feb 1993) didn’t burn down an Embassy.
The defendants have the best defence and they are entitled to it.
But they are self appointed individuals who are not delegated to decide what our law should be. In fairness to them, they also took on themselves
The five took it on themselves to face the consequences of what they did. They don’t hit and fllit They faced responsibility for their actions
You have a tough decision to make and I know you’ll face it
Final point: Dr. Jean Allain said that the war was an international crime He’s not relevant to the defence or the honest belief of the accused.defence
I would suggest that his evidence should not be a consideration as to what lawful excuse was
Were they there to save life or raise consciousness?
It is agreed that all four did give as their reason that they wanted to save life. They added other added other reasons such as having responsibility. showing solidarity, urgency and an act of prayer. One hoped that others would respond.. Another hoped their action would be a rallying call. Another spoke of breaches of international Law and divine law. Another hoped to save life and thought what she was doing was the only thing she could do.
Mr Devally said the jury had a difficult case; it was a difficult task
Regarding Mr. Oxley’s evidence, he had said that if five Iraqis took out a plane it would have been an act of war. It would have been a pre-emptive strike.
But the defendants were not Iraqi insurgents
He also said that you could not rule out or rule in the possibility that taking out a support plane could damage the enemy.
This reminds me of the Chaos theory and the butterfly effect – if a butterfly flaps its wings here (or if Mr Nix sneezes) it might cause a tsunami on the other end of the world.
Mr Oxley's reply means that you can' rule it out and you can't rule it in. That’s all he said. That means it’s a possibility, not a probability.
Mary Kelly had damaged a plane a week before. They were aware of it
I asked Ciaron O'Reilly if he was optimistic .(about the success of his action) and he finally acknowledged that he was expecting to be arrested
I asked him why he had said earlier that he wanted to put the war on trial, he said at that time ("War on Trial") was referring to a series of events that were happening around the city.
Ciaron O’Reilly whacked the plane. Karen Fallon did very little, but all had a common design and all accept responsibility
You must be rational, cool , not callous Don’t let your feelings get in the way. There was not an emergency. It is not for them to say that my Constitution should be interpreted as they saw it
Court Reporter
Homepage:
http://www.peaceontrial.com
Report on Ploughshares Benefit Gig with David Rovics & Joshua Casteel
23.07.2006 23:13
Over 100 folks turned up and turned over to join Pit Stop Ploughshares defendants at "The Bull & Castle" (opposite historic Christchurch Cathedral) last night (Sat J22) Paul O'Toole (Dub) & Pat from County Clare kicked off preceedings with songs about the U.S. military at Shannon Airport before rushing off to their day (?) jobs - another gig down the road. Pat has driven up from Clare to join Paul for about a dzen benefits for us over the last 3 1/2 years.
Next on was "Horsebox" revving up the vibe with a great performance. Maria Lara, chaperoned by her mother who had just landed from Italy, brought the passion of her homeland to her songs & covers - kicking off with the timeless "Masters of War".
U.S. Iraq War Veteran Joshua Casteel spoke of his experiences as an interrogator in Abu Ghraib & of his experiences with Fr. Dan Berrigan & living at the Catholic Worker in South Bend Indiana.
Ciaron, Damien, Deirdre & Nuin gave raps. Along with Don MacLean "the father, son & holy ghost", Karen had taken the last train to the coast" and was enjoying the warm weekend weather in County Clare (the county of the scene of the crime 3/2/03) that has spawned so many PSP5 benefit gigs over the last 3 1/2 years.
Being Catholic felt obligated to have a raffle! Fintan won the jailbreak movie "Lucky Break" (cover redecorated with the PSP5 going over the prison wall). Coilin won Ben Elton's "Blast from the Past" (Elton's Greenham Common missive) and a bunch of people won wine.
David Rovics took the stage and held us in trance with his well crafted songs, humour & anger.
Do yourself a favour get to his gig in Donegal Sunday night (J23) or in Sandino's Bar in Derry, Tuesday (J25). Get one of his CD;s (get two, I bought 3...we sold all on display at this gig!). Check out David's website. Sleep a little easier knowing this man is on the road spreading the anti-war message. he has been dedicating his song "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" to the Pit Stop Ploughshares while we remain before the courts.
www.davidrovics.com
Other David Rovics Gigs in Ireland
Sunday, July 23rd, 5 pm, Rodden's "Crana" Bar, Lower Main Street, Buncrana, Co. Donegal
Tuesday, July 25th, Sandino's Cafe Bar, Water Street, Derry
VIDEO LINK-EX ABU GHRAIB INTERRORGATOR, JOHN CASTEEL SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE WAR & IN SUPPORT OF THE CATHOLIC WORKER & INFO ON NATIONAL SPEAKING TOUR.
Revolt Video link Joshua Casteel Speaking Outside Jeb Bush function in Dublin last Friday
http://video.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/426.shtml
Joshua Casteel (former Abu Ghraib U.S. Military nterrogator at Abu Ghraib) National Speaking Tour.
Joshua Casteel, a member of the Iraqi Veterans Against War, and a former interrogator at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, will speak of his experiences at a public meetings organised by the Irish Anti War Movement across Ireland.
Joshua spoke at the Pit Stop Ploughshares Benefit Gig (Sat July 22nd) he has recently lived in a Catholic Worker in South Bend, Indiana. He is an informative & powerful speaker, we encourage you to attend his meeetings if possible.
* Monday 24th July Limerick: 7.30pm Riddlers Bar, Sarsfield Bridge,
* Tuesday 25th July Galway: 7.30pm Galway City Library
* Wednesday 26th July Cork: 8pm, Metropole Hotel, Macurtain St
* Thursday 27th July Dublin: 7.30pm ATGWU Hall 55 Middle Abbey St
* Friday 28th July Waterford 8pm Marine Hotel Canada Sq
* Monday 31st July Unallocated
* Tuesday 1st August Sligo: details to be announced
* Wednesday 2nd August Derry: details to be announced
* Thursday 3rd August Belfast: details to be announced
* Friday 4th August Dundalk: details to be announced
Related Link: http://www.peaceontrial.com
Next on was "Horsebox" revving up the vibe with a great performance. Maria Lara, chaperoned by her mother who had just landed from Italy, brought the passion of her homeland to her songs & covers - kicking off with the timeless "Masters of War".
U.S. Iraq War Veteran Joshua Casteel spoke of his experiences as an interrogator in Abu Ghraib & of his experiences with Fr. Dan Berrigan & living at the Catholic Worker in South Bend Indiana.
Ciaron, Damien, Deirdre & Nuin gave raps. Along with Don MacLean "the father, son & holy ghost", Karen had taken the last train to the coast" and was enjoying the warm weekend weather in County Clare (the county of the scene of the crime 3/2/03) that has spawned so many PSP5 benefit gigs over the last 3 1/2 years.
Being Catholic felt obligated to have a raffle! Fintan won the jailbreak movie "Lucky Break" (cover redecorated with the PSP5 going over the prison wall). Coilin won Ben Elton's "Blast from the Past" (Elton's Greenham Common missive) and a bunch of people won wine.
David Rovics took the stage and held us in trance with his well crafted songs, humour & anger.
Do yourself a favour get to his gig in Donegal Sunday night (J23) or in Sandino's Bar in Derry, Tuesday (J25). Get one of his CD;s (get two, I bought 3...we sold all on display at this gig!). Check out David's website. Sleep a little easier knowing this man is on the road spreading the anti-war message. he has been dedicating his song "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" to the Pit Stop Ploughshares while we remain before the courts.
www.davidrovics.com
Other David Rovics Gigs in Ireland
Sunday, July 23rd, 5 pm, Rodden's "Crana" Bar, Lower Main Street, Buncrana, Co. Donegal
Tuesday, July 25th, Sandino's Cafe Bar, Water Street, Derry
VIDEO LINK-EX ABU GHRAIB INTERRORGATOR, JOHN CASTEEL SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE WAR & IN SUPPORT OF THE CATHOLIC WORKER & INFO ON NATIONAL SPEAKING TOUR.
Revolt Video link Joshua Casteel Speaking Outside Jeb Bush function in Dublin last Friday
http://video.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/426.shtml Joshua Casteel (former Abu Ghraib U.S. Military nterrogator at Abu Ghraib) National Speaking Tour.
Joshua Casteel, a member of the Iraqi Veterans Against War, and a former interrogator at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, will speak of his experiences at a public meetings organised by the Irish Anti War Movement across Ireland.
Joshua spoke at the Pit Stop Ploughshares Benefit Gig (Sat July 22nd) he has recently lived in a Catholic Worker in South Bend, Indiana. He is an informative & powerful speaker, we encourage you to attend his meeetings if possible.
* Monday 24th July Limerick: 7.30pm Riddlers Bar, Sarsfield Bridge,
* Tuesday 25th July Galway: 7.30pm Galway City Library
* Wednesday 26th July Cork: 8pm, Metropole Hotel, Macurtain St
* Thursday 27th July Dublin: 7.30pm ATGWU Hall 55 Middle Abbey St
* Friday 28th July Waterford 8pm Marine Hotel Canada Sq
* Monday 31st July Unallocated
* Tuesday 1st August Sligo: details to be announced
* Wednesday 2nd August Derry: details to be announced
* Thursday 3rd August Belfast: details to be announced
* Friday 4th August Dundalk: details to be announced
Related Link:
http://www.peaceontrial.com
Hungover
Homepage:
http://www.peaceontrial.com
Comments
Display the following comment