The High Court rejected a legal appeal by Steven Bennett over his conviction arising from a short obstruction during a protest outside the Israeli Embassy in Dublin. It answered in the negative the question of whether the protest described in the case stated could amount to an act done with lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
The appeal, brought by way of case stated from the District Court, concerned a conviction on a charge under section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The charge alleged that Bennett wilfully interrupted the free passage of a vehicle in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The offence was taken into consideration when he was sentenced on a separate charge of resisting Garda Adrian Coffey; the judgment says he received a suspended five-month prison sentence on that charge.
The facts set out in the case stated were that a political protest took place on Pembroke Road on 8 July 2014, motivated by opposition to Israeli military air strikes on Gaza City. Bennett and Saoirse Bennett lay on the road as the Israeli ambassador’s car approached the embassy entrance. Gardaí directed him to stop obstructing the road. He stiffened his limbs and held on to Saoirse Bennett’s leg as Gardaí removed him. The obstruction lasted about 20 seconds. The District Court judge found that Bennett was peaceful and made no threats of violence.
The District Court judge nevertheless found that the obstruction was without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, citing safety, security and sensitivity concerns. The High Court said the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted without reasonable excuse, and that the offence was not one of strict liability. It also said the trial judge had to determine whether a reasonable excuse existed.
In reviewing the case stated, the High Court found that the District Court judge had not applied the wrong law or drawn an inference no reasonable judge could draw. It said the judge had considered the embassy’s security arrangements, the location and traffic conditions, the protest’s intended effect on the ambassador’s access, and potential dangers to the ambassador, embassy staff, Gardaí and the public.
The High Court said the short duration of the obstruction was a factor, but was not decisive in this case because Bennett did not voluntarily stop when directed and had to be forcibly removed. It also held that non-violent obstruction could fall within section 9. The court noted that a trial judge might find reasonable excuse in another peaceful-protest case, but concluded that this conviction was not such a case.