Ireland

Jobstown trial: Why false imprisonment charges were excessive

Lesser charges would have cost the State less and been quicker route to hear evidence

The false imprisonment charges were far beyond what was appropriate given the facts.
The false imprisonment charges were far beyond what was appropriate given the facts.
Frank Buttimer
Sat Jul 01 2017 - 01:00

What occurred in Jobstown, Tallaght on November 15th, 2014 was a public order event that got out of hand and which could have been dealt with using public order charges in the District Court.

It was open to the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring appropriate charges in an appropriate court. It is arguable that bringing false imprisonment charges was far in excess of this objective. It was over the top on the director's part.

As far as I can see the charges which were applicable were offences under the Public Order Act comprising of the following:

Section 9 which is the very simple prosecution of obstructing the free flow of traffic. Section 6 which is engaging in aggressive, abusive or insulting behaviour. And Section 8 which is failure to obey a garda direction to leave an area where a public order event is occurring.

READ SOME MORE

Gardaí could have cleared up the situation, subject to public order issues not getting worse, by issuing Section 8 warnings to leave the area. If the protesters were not to do so they would have been subject to arrest and prosecution.

Perceived offence

Such charges would have cost the State far less and would have been a far more expedient method of pursuing a prosecution for any perceived offence.

The false imprisonment charges were far beyond the pale. They were far beyond what was appropriate given the facts that presented themselves to the gardaí and the DPP.

The contradictions between the garda evidence would have emerged whether the trial was before the District Court or the Circuit Court. And it was proper that those issues were ventilated in a trial context. That happens all the time, where challenges are mounted to evidential matters and judges or juries have to decide on them. Recollections aren’t always false recollections; they may simply be erroneous recollections.

Human errors of recollection regularly arise after events which occur in the heat of the moment. A criminal trial is the place to examine these issues. But the forum for a criminal trial should be the appropriate one to the charges under consideration.

Frank Buttimer is a solicitor based in Cork specialising in criminal defence.