Rossport Five - Court Report

mayo | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Wednesday July 20, 2005 08:15 by Ed - Shelltosea

Overview at start of fourth week in jail

There are several layers of injustice underlying the imprisonment of these men who have had the courage to stand up against the unlimited resources of a multi-national supported hand in glove by our blinkered government.

Rossport Five

Court Position, 20th July, 2005

The position in the High Court as of now is that our men clearly have right on their side while Shell and the government have little or none.

The injunction granted to Shell was wrong from the outset: it did the opposite to what injunctions are intended to do. Instead of “freezing” the status quo - which was that Shell had never entered upon the lands in question - it actually changed the status quo giving Shell the right to broach new work while “freezing” the landowners actions.

Additionally, the principle of ‘laches’, which dictates that the courts may not be used to enforce a ‘right’ which the possessor has failed over an extended period to exercise, was ignored. Shell had possession of the alleged CAO and ‘Consent’ for over 2 ½ years yet never exercised it during that period. It consequently had no right to use the Court to enforce this alleged right as a matter of urgency.

Given such unsound grounds, injustice was further compounded in sending the landowners for judgement when there was substantial doubt as to the validity of Shell’s claimed right. The letter from the Dept. CM&NR confirming that consent to lay the pipeline had not been issued by the Minister was refused by the judge for procedural reasons, nevertheless there were grounds for doubt through knowledge of its existence. By contrast, two days later hearsay to the same effect was accepted as basis for agreeing to accept an application challenging the validity of the grounds underpinning the injunction. That is, solicitor Casey’s oral report of Dail proceedings was accepted on Friday whereas the more substantial Dept. letter conveying the same information was refused two days earlier.

Finally, once it was agreed to accept an application intended to challenge the injunction on Friday, it might reasonably be expected that the imprisoned men would be released pending the hearing of that application, as there was then formal acknowledgement by the judge of reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the clear implication is that the court is always right - even when the basis of its judgement is wrong.

Taken together these four circumstances present a shocking indictment of the manner in which the imprisoned men have been treated. When, in light of the above circumstances, the extreme and extraordinary threats used by the judge to coerce the injuncted men are taken into account there is little basis left for trust in protecting the constitutional guarantees of individual rights.