Last days of the Pitstop Ploughshares Trial

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report Wednesday July 26, 2006 09:35 by court reporter

Unbridled joy in court

In the Pitstop Ploughshares case at the Four Courts, the Judge's charging of the jury on Friday was difficult to hear. Three members of the public asked that the sound be turned up, - but without success.
On Monday the Judge went through the evidence of the defendants and the defence witnesses at break-neck speed and sent the jury out at ten past three to consider if they could reach a unanimous verdict.
This is a report on what followed in court on Monday and Tuesday.
Apologies for all errors and omissions. Apparent quotes do not mean to convey exact words.

MONDAY AFTERNOON

At 3.21 on Monday, the jury knocked on the door and requested the Statement of Faith of the defendants. They were promised that copies would be sent in to them, which they were

JURY IN 4.15 p.m. and the Judge addressed them. She had three points to make.

1) In my charge to you I made a reference to Ireland as always having been neutral. I would remind you now that the accused had a different view on that.

2) Re international law: Although international law is not recognised in Irish courts,
the accused had an informed view that the war in Iraq was illegal under international law. There was a large body of defence to show that their opinion was informed, and this was to the forefront of their defence. This had a bearing on their beliefs. Remember that all the circumstances bearing on their belief have to be considered.

3) I mentioned to you that the defendants had said they did their action to save lives, and I mentioned only lives of Iraqis. But Mr O'Reilly also had said that he wanted to save lives in Shannon.
You must ask yourselves were the actions reasonable in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be.

I won't trespass on the facts (which are your domain)

If you have any questions to ask, or need further clarification, you can come back again.

JURY OUT 4.24 p.m.

6.08 p.m. The jury requested a copy of the 1991 Act and the 199 amended portion of it.

JURY IN 6.35p.m. The jury returned for a decision on their request
The judge told them that it was most unusual to give a copy of the law to a jury but that she would read out the relevant parts, they should take notes, but if they needed a copy after that, it could be arranged.
She then read out the following:

"A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence."
and
" 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—
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 the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence, were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held"

The Judge said that if the jury required further help as to how to apply this she would provide it for them

JURY OUT 6.45 p.m.
JURY IN 6.52 p.m.The Jury were told to ignore the phrase "or threatened to damage" as there was no question of such a threat.
JURY OUT 6.55 p.m.
JURY IN 7.13 P.M. Jury called back and asked if they had agreed on a unanimous verdict. The foreperson answered NO.
Then the Judge sent them, accompanied by 5 Gardaí, to a hotel for the night.

TUESDAY MORNING

At 10.55 A.M. the Judge addressed the jury:

I have told you that it is yours to judge on matters of fact, but matters of law are mine.. You must take the law from me. Even though I know you would like a copy of the Act, I won't be giving it to you. I already directed you on it and I said that I would clarify it if necessary.

I notice too that you have been listening carefully. You must put out of your heads any information you may have received elsewhere and base your decision on the facts as you have heard them here. If I were to give you the Act (or a portion of it) you might try to interpret it - you are not expected to do that and you are not allowed to speculate in this area. This is my area and I'll now help you with it. I'll keep it as simple as I can.

1) Your decision will be based on the evidence you have heard in court
2) You can apply your collective experience and common sense as long as it is based on the evidence
3) The Presumption of Innocence of the accused runs from beginning to end of their trial. It is the burden of the Prosecution to rebut this and to prove they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
4) You must be satisfied of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict
5) It is important that you base your verdict on Principles
6) The accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
7) Even though their actions were different, they acted as one; nevertheless you must treat them as five different people (and give separate verdicts)
8) The part of the law that is relevant to you is this:

"A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another or is reckless as to whether any such property might be damaged shall be guilty of an offence."

In the same Act there is a defence allowed which is "Lawful Excuse"

It has been admitted that property was damaged and that the property belonged to another and that the persons who caused it are the accused. There is no issue in any of this.

The phrase "without lawful excuse" is your issue. You must decide whether or not they had lawful excuse.

What is Lawful excuse? You must abide by the section of law enacted by the Oireachtas and decide: Does it apply in this case.based on what you have seen and heard here over the past twenty days. And you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

The law on lawful excuse as it pertains to this case is:

" A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall be treated as having a lawful excuse 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 his acts were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.
It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held"

The Defence's position is that the actions were to protect the lives and property of themselves or another you must decide if their actions were reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be.

Was their belief that they would save lives or property honestly held - I suggest that it was. They called witnesses such as Kathy Kelly to demonstrate this. They heard her, and you have her evidence. Captain Oxley gave evidence that their action could possibly have the effect of saving life. The five have also given evidence that they had honest belief. You are free to disagree with my opinion on this.

There is one more step: Even if you are satisfied that they had honest belief (about which there appears to be no dispute), you must finally decide whether or not their action was reasonable

Was the attack on the plane reasonable in all the circumstances as they believed them to be
Would a man holding these beliefs, in the circumstances as he believed them to be, damage this property
I suggest that you must look at the acts and the alleged (intention?) - Were they done to protect life or property, was there a causal relation between the acts done and the outcome: the saving of life or property of another, or were they reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be.
I have explained that the Prosecution must have removed the doubt that the defendants did not have lawful excuse.

If this has not clarified the law, you are free to come back.

JURY BACK 11.46 a.m.

Court official: Answer only Yes or No to this Question: Have you reached a unanimous decision.
Answer: YES

(With regard to the charge of damage without lawful excuse to the door) do you find the defendant, Ciaron O'Reilly guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Damien Moran guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Nuin Dunlop, guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Karen Fallon, guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Deirdre Clancy, guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

With regard to the charge of damage without lawful excuse to the airplane) do you find the defendant, Ciaron O'Reilly guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Damien Moran guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Nuin Dunlop, guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Karen Fallon, guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Same question) do you find the defendant, Deirdre Clancy, guilty or not guilty? Answer: NOT GUILTY

(Tears in court and applause after the Judge had left)