The first set of adult trials concluded with a Not Guilty verdict
Fabricated evidence and false testimony by Gardai in the Jobstown Protest trial.
These transcripts, the book of evidence and the video evidence contain the evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving a series of Gardai lying in a co-ordinated way in their statements and under oath in court.
#JobstownNotGuilty has called for a public inquiry into this conspiracy, a call which has been supported by over 100 TDs, Senators, academics and trade unionists. Unfortunately, the government has so far dismissed the call and large sections of the media seem to prefer to engage in attempts to re-run the trial or suggest that the defendants must have been guilty of some trial.
We have therefore decided to publish all of this material so that journalists and activists are able to look at it themselves, speak out about what took place and by so doing, to increase the pressure on the government for an inquiry, the dropping of all charges against other Jobstown protesters and to support the appeal of the 15 year old to have his conviction in a judge-only court of false imprisonment to be overturned.
Below we list just four of the highlights of false and inaccurate evidence given by the Garda Siochana, as well as evidence of a completely biased investigation designed to stitch up protesters for false imprisonment. There are other instances not referenced here.
1. 'Job No. 4' – interviewing of non-suspect Garda witnesses
It emerged in evidence in trial, in cross-examination of Gardai by Michael O'Higgins SC that at the first case conference on the Saturday of the protest, Job No. 4 was created – which was to call door to door to interview those who may have witnessed or participated in the protests, but weren't suspects. On the following Monday, in a second case conference chaired by Chief Superintendent Orla McPartlin, this job was dropped. The result was that while over 180 statements were taken from Garda witnesses, no statements were taken from any protesters who weren't suspects. This was illustrative that the investigation was biased from two days after the protest. It was no longer devoted to uncovering the truth about the protest, it was about finding evidence to convict protesters.
2. “Will we keep her here all night?” - heard by three Gardai, yet never said.
A Garda Superintendent, a Garda Inspector and a Garda Sergeant all claimed in court that, on the occasion of a vote on the Fortunestown Road on what course of action to take with the protest, Paul Murphy asked the protesters in relation to Joan Burton, ‘Will we keep her here all night?’ They were Superintendent Flavin, the most senior Garda present, Inspector Maguire, the second most senior Garda on the protest and Sergeant Phelan.
However a video emerged, and was shown in court of that episode, which showed categorically that Paul Murphy did not say that, nor did anyone else. The video showed Solidarity Councillor Mick Murphy urging the protest to avoid any conflict with the Gardai and to march to the Tallaght Bypass in front of the Garda jeep in which Ms Burton was. It then showed Paul Murphy and Mick Murphy voting to march to the Bypass. It showed multiple Gardai standing around, while this took place – yet none of them saw this.
How did these these three Gardai ‘hear’ a critical question that was never uttered by Paul Murphy but gave the false impression that he was arguing to keep Joan Burton detained indefinitely? How did they, during the same incident, fail to hear Mick Murphy arguing for the protest to march to the Bypass. How did they fail to see Paul Murphy twice raising his hand in support of marching to the Bypass?
3. Garda seeing defendant 'Directing protesters where to stand' when couldn't have seen it
Garda Cooke fabricated his statement when he said that Paul Murphy was on a megaphone in the ground of St Thomas’ Church, Jobstown directing people where to stand implying that he was instructing them to surround an Avensis car, the first Garda car into which the Garda put Joan Burton.
He said in his written statement and in the District Court case that in the church grounds, Paul Murphy was on the megaphone and ‘directing protesters where to stand.’ This never happened. The import of this is that Paul Murphy was getting people to stand where they could see the Avensis and have people ready to surround the car when Joan Burton was brought out from St Thomas’ Church and put into it. This would strengthen the alleged false imprisonment case.
The video evidence shown in court proved this to be fabricated. It was obviously designed for the purpose of framing Paul Murphy with responsibility for orchestrating and organising the protest at which Joan Burton was supposedly falsely imprisoned when it is blatantly obvious that the protest was unorganised and somewhat chaotic as a result. For the full time that this Garda and Paul Murphy were in the church grounds, Paul Murphy never used a megaphone nor directed anybody to do anything.
In court Garda Cooke changed his version of events to say that Paul Murphy by gestures and body language – rather than verbally – was directing people where to stand. This was also contradicted by the video evidence, to which Garda Cooke responded that he stood over his statement.
Sean Guerin SC challenged him: ‘The reason you made your false statement was because you wanted to establish that Mr Murphy was guilty of an offence . . . and you wanted him responsible for the behaviour of other people . . . . . .because you wanted to fix him with responsibility in law for their behaviour.’
4. Superintendent attempts to fix responsibility for 'violence' on defendant
In his written statement, Superintendent Daniel Flavin – the most senior Garda at the Jobstown protest - accused Paul Murphy of fomenting violence. He backed away from this position in evidence and cross examination.
His Statement made a week after the Jobstown protest: ‘Mr Paul MurphyTD addressed the crowd of protesters now numbering several hundred through a megaphone. He was chanting and as a consequence of what he was saying the protesters became more animated and aggressive. Missiles began to be thrown at Gardai. I observed sticks, stones and eggs hitting Gardai and the Garda jeep.’’
In his direct evidence to the court, Superintendent Flavin backed away from his claim that Paul Murphy caused violence. In relation to this Sean Guerin Senior Counsel for Paul Murphy asked the Superintendent: ‘I take it that you will understand readily Superintendent, that the priority for this jury is finding the truth of what happened that day, and that's why you came to court, and you refreshed your memory with your statement so that you could tell them the truth.
So why did you not tell them that the violence was the consequence of what Paul Murphy was saying to the crowd?
A.I suppose in one respect if - - it's trying to be fair to him. . . .
Sean Guerin, Senior Counsel for Paul Murphy, in cross examination put it to Superintendent Flavin: ‘This is not the first time in this case that a prosecution witness has come to court and failed to make an allegation in their evidence which is contained in their statement concerning Paul Murphy. You may not know that because you weren't in court. I take it you would accept and understand that what you said in your statement about the violence being a consequence of Mr Murphy's address to the crowd, you would understand that the legal significance of that is that Mr Murphy would bear responsibility for what the crowd did at his urging. You understand that, don't you?
Supt Flavin Yes, Judge, yes.
S. Guerin. Yes. So the statement - - that part of your statement would have the consequence in law of extending Mr Murphy's criminal responsibility for what happened on the day to the actions of other people; isn't that correct?
S. Guerin: Superintendent Flavin, when you made a statement alleging that Mr Paul Murphy was the instigator and the fomenter of violence, an allegation which you were not willing to come to court and repeat until it was put to you by the defence, were you attempting to pervert the course of justice?
Superintendent: No, Judge.
S. Guerin: Were you trying to get a charge preferred against him by the DPP in circumstances where you feared that if he were not tied to the violence, a charge might not be preferred?
Superintendent: Absolutely not, Judge. . . . . . .
S. Guerin: And if the ladies and gentlemen of the jury come to the view that what you did by making a serious allegation, which would have the legal consequence of making Mr Murphy responsible for the violence of others, which you were reluctant to
make on oath, was part of a pattern evident also in the behaviour of other gardaí, is that because you were in fact part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?