The High Court upheld the dismissal of charges alleging traffic obstruction during an Irish Water protest in Dún Laoghaire, but ruled that the District Court was wrong to dismiss three related charges of failing to obey Garda directions. It sent those section 8 charges back to the District Court to be dealt with.
The case concerned James Kelly, Aisling Butler and Caroline Doyle, who faced charges arising from events on York Road on 18 May 2015. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the appeal by way of case stated, asking the High Court to review the District Court judge’s decisions on points of law. The appeal was heard by the High Court in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Eagar on 6 March 2017.
The District Court had dismissed charges under section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, which alleged that the defendants had wilfully obstructed the free passage of a vehicle. The judge considered that the prosecution had to prove the obstruction was without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and that the evidence did not establish that element.
Mr Justice Eagar agreed. He said there was “no evidence of any kind” to suggest the defendants were obstructing traffic without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The court therefore upheld the dismissal of the section 9 charges.
The High Court reached a different conclusion on charges under section 8, which alleged failure to comply with Garda directions to desist and move on. The District Court had dismissed those charges because Sergeant David Gilmore’s evidence showed that his understanding of the section 9 offence did not address the lawful authority or reasonable excuse elements.
The High Court held that the District Court was wrong to require the sergeant to believe that every element of a section 9 offence, including the absence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, was present before giving a section 8 direction. It found his opinion that the defendants were committing a section 9 offence was reasonable, particularly given that they had been asked at least three times to comply with directions.
The judgment recounted evidence that the defendants remained around a truck blocking the road after directions were given. Kelly was seated in front of the truck with arms linked with others; Butler and Doyle were seated behind it. The court concluded that the directions and subsequent arrests were reasonable and lawful.
The DPP did not pursue the separate section 24 charges concerning failure to provide names and addresses. The High Court’s decision did not determine the defendants’ guilt on the section 8 charges. It returned those remaining charges to the District Court for further handling.