The Court of Appeal has overturned the District Court’s dismissal of section 9 charges against three defendants accused of deliberately blocking a truck during a protest on York Road, Dún Laoghaire, in May 2015. It also ruled that the District Court was wrong to dismiss related section 8 charges, but the appeal judgment did not determine the defendants’ guilt or impose a sentence.
The case reached the Court of Appeal through cross-appeals concerning answers given by the High Court to questions in a case stated by the District Court. The High Court had upheld the dismissal of the section 9 charges but ruled that the section 8 charges should proceed. The charges under section 24 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 had already been dismissed and were not in dispute.
The prosecution evidence described protesters stopping a truck on York Road. An Irish Water contractor testified that the truck could not move because protesters blocked it, and that traffic had to pass around it on the opposite side of the road. Sergeant David Gilmore said he saw people in front of and behind the truck, with traffic diverting around it. He gave directions under section 8 to move or desist; the defendants were among those who did not comply.
The District Court had found the prosecution had not provided adequate evidence that the obstruction was without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, an element of the section 9 offence. It also concluded that the evidence did not establish the reasonable suspicion required for the section 8 directions. The High Court agreed on the section 9 evidence but said the section 8 charges should not have been dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had to prove the absence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse for a section 9 offence, and that a Garda’s reasonable suspicion under section 8 had to encompass that element. But it said the trial evidence could support the conclusion that the truck’s passage was deliberately blocked without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It also said the sergeant’s failure to recite each statutory ingredient did not prevent the court from inferring that he held the required opinion.
The court answered that the District Court was wrong to find the evidence inadequate and wrong to dismiss the section 9 charges. It also answered that the sergeant had to suspect obstruction without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to give section 8 directions, but that his failure to state this expressly did not mean he lacked the required opinion. The judgment records no final determination of the charges after those answers.