The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dan Dowling’s appeal against his conviction for trespass at Shannon Airport, ruling that the defence of necessity could not apply to the direct action described in the case and that the evidence did not show a pressing danger or an inescapable need to offend.
Dowling and Edward Horgan were found guilty of trespass and not guilty of criminal damage after a Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial in January 2023. The charges arose from an incident in a high-security area of Shannon Airport on 25 April 2017 involving two US military aircraft. Dowling appealed only his trespass conviction.
The prosecution evidence was that the men ran towards the aircraft despite being told to stop. A Defence Forces witness said he saw Dowling begin writing on an aircraft after being instructed to step back. The words “Danger, danger, do not fly” were later seen on the aircraft, and a black marker was found near Dowling. The witness also said Dowling shouted that the aircraft should be searched because it contained prisoners and weapons.
Dowling did not give evidence at trial. Horgan testified that he believed his actions could help prevent deaths in the Middle East and said he believed he had a lawful excuse. He accepted that the aircraft were US military aircraft but said nothing about Dowling’s personal motivation, apart from confirming they had a joint purpose. Dowling’s counsel argued on appeal that his motivation could be inferred from that shared purpose and his remarks after detention.
The appeal focused on whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on necessity, sometimes called duress of circumstances. The judge had explained the trespass charge but said nothing directly about necessity. The Court of Appeal accepted that the common-law defence could in principle arise in relation to trespass.
However, the court said necessity was subject to strict limits, including a real and pressing danger, no lawful alternative, proportionality and the accused not having brought about the situation. It held that the evidence could not show a real and pressing danger or an inescapable necessity to commit the offence. It also held that necessity could not justify this kind of direct action as a matter of principle.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal. The judgment concerns Dowling’s trespass conviction; it does not alter the acquittals on the criminal-damage count.