Ploughshares Trial Report Days 6 & 7

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Thursday November 03, 2005 02:12

by Court Reporter

4 defendants and 2 ex-military witnesses heard

Tuesday saw the continuation of Ciaron's testimony, and Damien Moran took the stand, to not only explain what he did and why, but at the request of the prosecutor, young Damo demonstrated the correct way to hold and use a hammer!
On Wednesday, 4 witnesses were in the stand. First, a retired RAF group captain gave expert testimony as to the effect that disrupting military supply lines has on a war effort. Then Jimmy Massey told the court about his time in Kuwait and Iraq as a US Marine Staff Sgt around the time of the action.
Karen Fallon spent 50 minutes in the stand telling it like it is, and Deirdre Clancy commenced her testimony, which continues tomorrow. Report based on our notes.

TUESDAY 1st November 2005
Circuit Court. Court 23
Four Courts.
Judge Donagh McDonagh Presiding.
DPP v Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Damien Moran, and Ciaron O'Reilly.
Part of the morning was taken up in legal argument and other matters in the absence of the jury, which cannot be reported at this time.

The jury were allowed in at 10:42 following a ruling by the judge on those matters.

Mr. Devally S.C. (prosecuting) asked Mr. O'Reilly about the planning period in the monastery, and whose idea it had been to bring the shrine items.
Mr. O'Reilly said it was agreed by the group, and he doesn't recall 2.5 years later who had most influence on that decision.

Mr. Devally asked Mr. O'Reilly if he was older than the others, which Mr. O'Reilly confirmed.

Mr. Devally: Would they consider you to be more experienced?

COR: You'd have to ask them. They're all very independent people

Mr. Devally : You're very modest, but surely you have an idea whether they think that you're more experienced or not.

COR: You'd have to ask them what they think.

In a series of questions, Mr. Devally then asked Mr. O'Reilly to confirm that Mr O'Reilly had spent time in various countries in Catholic Worker communities.
Ciaron confirmed that he had done so, and in reply to questions also confirmed that he had engaged in communities and actions in Australia, the US and the UK.

Mr. Devally went on to suggest that Mr. O'Reilly, being older, and more experienced, had been instrumental in deciding the form of the action, and gathering the items for it.
Mr. O'Reilly disagreed.
Mr. Devally asked if Ciaron could take credit for bringing any of the items in the shrine.
Mr. O'Reilly replied that after two and a half years, his recollection is not so clear as to who had brought which item.

Mr. Devally: Someone had a rucksack containing photos, hammers. They weren't new were they? You didn't buy them in a local hardware shop. Your group brought them

COR: Yes we did.

Mr. D: Was it your idea to build the shrine?

COR: I either suggested it, or agreed with a suggestion of someone else. It was by consensus.

Mr. D: You told the jury that you wouldn't have done this if you thought that there was no possibility to change people's hearts on the issue?

COR: that's correct.

Mr. D : It was part of the plan that these items would do that?

COR: It would provide the context and the spirit in which we acted.

Mr. D: Can I suggest that you put them there, knowing that the Garda Siochana would take them, and that they would provide a backdrop for the trial.

COR: That's not the reason.

In relation to gaining access to the airfield through a hole in the fence and into the SRS hangar, Mr. Devally put it to Mr. O'Reilly that he (O'Reilly) knew that he was not entitled to go in.

Mr. O'Reilly replied that he felt entitled to enter and act under international law, and the Nuremburg principles.
When asked about the hangar emergency door, Mr. O'Reilly said that he considered the situation to be an emergency.

Mr. Devally asked if Mr. O'Reilly had done similar acts before, which was confirmed.
Mr. O'Reilly also confirmed going over fences and other obstacles in other occassions.

Without mentioning the specifics of the actions, Mr. Devally asked if Mr. O'Reilly had felt motivated by a view that those previous acts were to "try to avert something hostile"

Mr. O'Reilly replied that this was correct, that in the first incident, there was a hostility which killed many people including children, and that the second was also to avoid the massacre of children.

When asked if he thought he had a lawful reason and if so why, Mr. O'Reilly said that he did believe that he had lawful reasons, and his belief was partly based on being in court in Liverpool in 1996 . Mr. Devally interrupted, but was objected to, and Mr. O'Reilly continued his answer.
Mr. O'Reilly described being in court in Liverpool at the trial of the women (Seeds of Hope Ploughshares) who disarmed Hawk jets that were to be sold to the Indonesian military for use in East Timor, which Indonesia was bombing at the time. Mr. O'Reilly informed the court that these women were acquitted by a jury as they were found to have lawful excuse.
Mr. O'Reilly also mentioned a case (involving some of the same women) who were acquitted after they damaged part of the Trident nuclear weapons system in Scotland, as the court in that instance ruled that the Trident Weapons system was itself illegal.
Mr. O'Reilly said that these verdicts had helped form his belief that damaging the US Navy jet was not a crime.

Mr. Devally asked if Mr. O'Reilly had personally been vindicated as acting lawfully for previous acts.

COR: Yes, on occassion I've been found guilty by the courts in other jurisdictions, but I still believe I was innocent.

Mr. D : So your view has not been upheld by the courts in your cases?

COR: Not yet...

Mr. D : You've been convicted in other jurisdictions for similar acts

COR: This is a different context. Ireland has a constituion in which articles 28 and 29 prohibited the US military use of Shannon for this war, and the specific legal situation here is different.

Mr. Devally put it to Mr. O'Reilly that he went prepared with these items to do the action and to go to trial with them.

Mr: O'Reilly replied that he knew that was a possibility, but had hoped also that it could have happened that the act would have sparked a wider resistance to the war.

When Mr. Devally put it to him that it was more than a possibility that they would go to trial, Mr. O'Reilly replied that on the night there had been many possibilities, including being shot by Gardai with Uzis or being arrested before getting to the plane.

When asked about his hope of changing peoples hearts, Mr. O'Reilly sais that because of his christian faith and knowledge of human nature, that he believed that it was always possible for people to change, but that often fear stood in the way, be it fear of losing their jobs or whatever, and that he had heard of and observed instances where police officers had, in similar situations, opted to change their ways and resist.

When asked if he was aware that the Irish Govt had given permission for the US military to use the airport, Mr. O'Reilly said that he understood that the Dail had not approved participation in the war, and the politicians were merely spinning on the issue. and that the govt position was unconstitutional.

Mr. Devally put it to Mr. O'Reilly that as he profoundly disagreed with the Irish government, that he had entered the airport to show his disagreement.

Mr. O'Reilly said that he entered and acted primarily out of a moral obligation to oppose total war.

There was a lot of repitition on this point where the prosecutor suggested that the act was one of protest, and the defendant repeatedly replied that the main reason was a moral obligation to oppose war and killing.

When asked if he had taken the law into his own hands, Mr. O'Reilly replied that he disabled a US Navy warplane that was part of the military machine that bombarded innocent people, that he acted to fulfil the law, the constitution, his christian faith and the Nuremberg Principles.

This was repeated about three times, and on the last occasion Mr.O'Reilly said that the Irish Govt had facilitated the war, but was not checking the planes.

Mr. Devally asked if Mr. O'Reilly had sought legal advice as well as seeking spiritual guidance in a monastery. Mr. O'Reilly said that he had not sought specific legal advice, but had informed himself and got photographs and information from Iraq, via Cathy Kelly who had been there with the group Voices In The Wilderness.

Mr. Nix, S.C (cross examining barrister, representing Karen Fallon) asked Ciaron a hypothetical question with a topical edge.
"If you knew that the state had legally placed children in an institution, where they were abused, would you do something to try help the children, even - even if they had been lawfully placed there?"

COR: Yes.

Mr. Nix then asked about the period of reflection and guidance in Glenstal Abbey before the action. Mr. O'Reilly explained that they were concerned about the situation, and sought spiritual guidance, and time to reflect.

When asked if the Catholic Workers were a religious order, Mr. O'Reilly said that they were faith-based, but not a religious order, rather the lived as lay people in communities trying to help the poor and oppose injustice.

When asked about the word 'prophecy' as in the prophecy of Isiah (to beat swords into ploughshares/plowshares) Mr. O'Reilly said that it connected the past present and future, as in when one sees large numbers of the US Military in desert camoflauge at Shannon Airport, then you know that they're going to a desert war.

Asked, about his paid work, Mr. O'Reilly told the court that he worked in a 'wet shelter' a homeless shelter that accepted people with alcohol problems who were thus not allowed into other 'dry' shelters and would be left on the streets.

Mr. Nix then asked if Mr. O'Reilly had complied with all his bail conditions, which he confirmed.

In relation to the Shrine, Mr. O'Reilly said that it was to remember the dead. he said that he had watched the tapes included in the shrine, including John Pilger's video "Paying the Price", and had been informed by them, as well as by reading the newspapers and watching the news, and was aware that even after the Iraqi army had been kicked out of Iraq, that the no-fly zones were regularly bombed by the US and UK military jets, and that civilian Iraqi infrastructure had been repeatedly bombed also.
He also said that he had seen former Asst Secretary General of the United Nations, Denis Halliday on that tape, and on the BBC, and on RTE, and had seen him at Shannon Airport two days before the disarmament action, and knew that Mr. Halliday had resigned from his position from the UN.
Mr. O'Reilly said that the frequent bombing raids after the official cease-fire had killed thousands of people, and at the time of the action in February 2003, there was a massive military build up, and he believed that war was imminent, and that there would be lots of 'collateral damage' which means lots of civilians being killed by the military being passed off as an 'unfortunate side effect', and that he feared indiscriminate killing of civilians.

Mr. Nix: What is the purpose of a shrine

COR: To remember the dead, whether in a car accident or whatever, in this case ours was specifically to commemorate those killed in Iraq.

When asked by Mr. Nix if he had heard of a place called Fallujah, and that the US military had bragged of levelling it to the ground, Mr. O'Reilly said that he had met people from Fallujah.

Mr. Nix. : In relation to the Trident trial you spoke of, the women were found innocent?

COR: Yes, the judge directed that they be found innocent.

Mr. Nix: Besides the shrine, there was also an inflatable hammer, what was that about?

COR: It's a symbol of popular Irish culture.

Mr. Nix : And a mattock, an agricultural implement, like a pick axe on one side, and like a plough on the other.

COR: It's a gardening tool

Mr. Nix : a hefty one. You would uproot a furze bush with one

Mr. O'Reilly said that it was symbolic and similar to a ploughshare.
There was a brief reference to the Catholic Worker founder Dorothy Day who is being considered for sainthood. [Didn't catch it all]

Mr. O' Higgins S.C [Cross examining barrister, representing Nuin Dunlop and Deirdre Clancy] asked about Mr. O'Reilly;'s motives.

Mr.O'Reilly confirmed that it was his motivation to protect life, people and property, and it was his honestly held belief that his action was an attempt to do that.
When asked if he had any working knowledge of the Geneva Convention, Mr. O'Reilly said that he was aware that it prohibited many things including the bombing of civilian areas, it gave legal protection to civilians in a time of war, as well as their property and the environment.

Mr. O'Higgins referred to an earlier statement of Mr. O'Reilly that Mr. O'Reilly was trying to stop a crime. Mr. O' Higgins asked what crime was referred to.
Mr. O'Reilly said that it was the bombing, and killing of civilians and the destruction of the social infrastructure, and that in his view the war was illegal, and irrespective of the illegality or otherwise of the war itself, the bombing of civilians and infrastructure was itself illegal, that his view had been informe dby the events of the previous 12 years, of bombardment, the deaths of many thousands of civilians, perhaps 50,000 killed by bombing directly including those who died of typhoid, cholera when water and sewage systems were bombed. He said he was aware that the US military was not on the ground in Iraq at the period, and that UN weapons inspectors were checking for WMD programmes, and that there were restrictions on Iraq's main export, -oil, under the oil for food programme, and sanctions that meant a lack of basic medicines, or capability to repair or maintain necessary infrastructure such as electricity and water.
He also said that he had been aware, prior to Feb 3rd 2003, of the Bush administration statements re: possible first strike use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, that this was not ruled out, and generally the US never does rule out the use.
Mr. O'Reilly said that throughout the 1990s the 'Coalition Forces' continued to bomb Iraq, in thousands of raids, and that there was an escalation of activity prior to the invasion by ground forces on 20th March 2003, as well as the rhetoric of 'Shock and Awe', advocating use of overwhelming firepower to create a quick collapse of Iraq.

The Judge asked Mr. O'Reilly why he hadn't gone through the courts.
Mr. O'Reilly replied that he was aware that other people had taken complaints to the Garda Siochana and that he thought that the Garda Siochana structure wasn't listening, he also said that there was a sense of urgency and courts moved slowly, and pointed to the fact that the courts had taken two and a half years to bring him to trial.

At 12:20 Damien Moran was called to the stand.
He gave details of being born in Galway, brought up in Offally, going to UCG to do a BA in English and Geography, and after that, working in a hotel to get money to either visit his Aunt, a nun in Rwanda or else go to Haiti. He decided to go to Haiti and spoke of his voluntary work, visiting hospitals, in that small poor country, before returning to Ireland in 2001 to do a H. Dip in UCD.
He said that after his experience in Haiti, he decided to train to be a Catholic Priest and joined the Holy Ghost Fathers seminery in Kimmage, and was enrolled there up until May 2003.

When asked of his awareness of events in Iraq, Mr. Moran said that he had helped to set up a small Amnesty International group in the seminary in Kimmage, and was involved in Pax Christi, and had also met an Iraqi doctor, Dr. Zahir Allihali in St. James' Hospital, and as result of speaking to him, had written letters to the Taoiseach and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs expressing shock at the sanctions and deaths in Iraq. The letter was entered as an exhibit.
The letter was read to the court, and it referred to expert opinions that the sanctions caused the deaths of thousands of children, about 150 per day, and was a violation of the UN Human Rights Charter. The letter also asked the Taoiseach and Ministers to take immediate action to try to end the sanctions, and stated that our failure to do so to date was a disgrace.

Mr. O Hanlon asked if the letter represented his honest beliefs, to which Mr. Moran replied that it was his honest belief that about 150 children per day died as a result of the sanctions and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Mr. Moran said that the shrine was to commemorate the dead, and reminded the court that it was (on Tuesday) All Soul's Day. He listed the items used in the shrine to commemorate the dead and the significance of each.
In relation to the tapes he said that he had watched them before going to Shannon, and that they showed effects of the sanctions and bombings, and showed Denis Halliday, an Irish man who had been Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and head of the Oil for Food program, and had smuggled medicine in to Iraq to help children, in violation of the very sanctions he was supposed to uphold. Mr. Moran said that he had heard Mr. Halliday speak 2 days before the action at Shannon.

When asked why he had gone into the airport, Mr. Moran said that he had acted to save lives and property, to commemorate the dead, and ask forgiveness for their deaths, to disable a part of the war machine, an essential part of the logistics supplying the war.

When asked if he was aware of the presence of the aircraft, Mr. Moran said that he had seen it through a gap in the roller door of the hangar, and recognised from the markings that it was the same one that had been disarmed previously. He said that he jogged up to the plane and started to belt at the radome covering on the nose as he knew that if he damaged it, that the aircraft would be unable to fly.
When asked about the Garda Siochana present, Mr. Moran said that, as he was hammering he saw the Garda Sgt approach, asking the group to stop hitting the plane. Mr. Moran asked him to join in, and continued to disable the aircraft for about 5-7 minutes, before joining other defendants in a circle, placing the hammers outside.
He agreed with the Garda Sgt's statement that they presented no threat to the Garda.
Mr. O'Hanlon then referred to Mr. Moran's statement that he acted out of conscience to prevent a great crime at Shannon Airport, and asked the meaning.
Mr. Moran said that had seen military aircraft at Shannon, and on one occassion 150 troops in desert fatigues, and had made complaints to the Garda Siochana, which were not taken seriously. He said he had made complaints citing things such as the 1954 Defense Act, amongs others, and Minister Cowen had waived a lot of restrictions on foreign troops wearing uniforms and bringing weapons through Shannon.

Mr: O'Hanlon : At one point you made a statement that you looked forward to putting your case before a jury. Was that your purpose?

Damien Moran: No. I think if you look at the date of that statement it was on 21st March 2003, and I'd already been arrested. I told Det Sgt Houlihan that I had acted lawfully, with lawful excuse to defend life, uphold the law and I told him about the acquittal of the women in the Liverpool Trial.

Under further questioning, Mr. Moran said that it was his honestly held belief that his act was an attempt to save lives, and that he still holds that belief today. He rejected any suggestion that it was a publicity stunt, and pointed out that he had no control of the media, but he thought that he thought it would be a right of the Irish people to know why the act was done.

At 12:46 Mr. Devally S.C. began cross examination.
He asked about the groups time in Glenstal. Mr. Moran said that his uncle had been a monk there for 16 years. Mr. Moran said that before the action he had been to demonstrations at Shannon, including one where two US military flights were diverted to Prestwick, in early December.

Mr. Devally asked if it was in Mr. Moran's mind in Glenstal to do this action. Mr. Moran said that they didn't know if there would be a military jet there when the went in or not, but if they found one, that they would damage it.
Mr. Devally asked which hammer had been used and if Mr. Moran had purchased it.
Mr. Moran said that he used the red hammer and that he had not bought it, but had received it after seeing it at a peace conference, and that it had been used in the Liverpool Action, by the women who were acquitted.
Mr. Devally asked Mr. Moran to show the court what he had done with the hammer. [The hammer was handed to Mr. Moran]
Mr. Moran said that he didn't have an aircraft in the court-room to demonstrate on. The judge said that, at any rate, he shouldn't demonstrate with the same vigour and energy, lest it fly out of his hand and injure somebody.
Mr. Devally asked Mr. Moran to re-enact how he used the hammer.
Mr Moran replied "Well, rather simply, I held the hammer, like so by the handle, brought it back, and then forward 'bang' " accompanied with appropriate and rather obvious motions of using a hammer. There was some quiet laughter in court.

Mr. Devally: You subsequently described this act as non-violent?
Mr. Moran: Subsequently?
Mr. Devally: Yes, in the Statement of Faith
Mr. Moran: Yes.
Mr. Devally. You broke a door
Mr. Moran: Yes
Mr. Devally: You'd describe that as non-violent?
Mr. Moran: If I broke in to rob the place, it would be violent, but it's different. I broke in to get the plane.
Mr. Devally: So, it depends on the circumstances then?
Mr. Moran: Yes, very different circumstances, there had been 26,000 troops through Shannon in the 6 weeks prior to our action.

Mr. Devally then referred to the action of a woman a few days before this incident, and asked if Mr. Moran was aware that she had been arrested, and if Mr. Moran thought it was likely that he'd be arrested.

Mr. Moran said that he thought it was a possibility, that he'd hoped that the people at the airport might join in, but that he was prepared to be arrested, and offered no resistance to arrest.

Break for lunch 12.58 -14.05
After lunch Mr. Devally continued his cross examination of Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran said that he had been at demos at Shannon Airport including in December 2002 and January 2003, and that these demos, like all the others, had been peaceful protests. When asked the purpose, he said that it was to voice opposition to the US military use of Shannon airport to maim and kill other people and be maimed or killed themselves.
Mr. Devally asked if it was Mr. Moran's intention to have his voice heard and thuse persuade others to change their stance.
Mr. Moran said that primarily his responsibility was for his own actions, and that he would describe the speaking out as inviting others to reflect rather than persuading them. He said that most of the people at the demos were already against the war and use of Shannon anyway, and that he had gone to the Garda Siochana to make complaints, and was aware of the Shannon Peace Camp which was monitoring and informing the public.
The prosecutor then made a long (and fairly unproductive) comparison to Woodquay protests, before asking if Mr. Moran was trying to make a positive contribution, to which Mr. Moran answered that he was trying to help with non-violent conflict resolution, to help people to see that "it doesn't have to be like this, with so many people killed, in an immoral and illegal way"

When asked if his action was to bring attention to the use of Shannon Airport in a way that he disagreed with, Mr. Moran said that this had already been done by others, such as the people at the Shannon Peace Camp.
When asked if his action was part of the effort to keep Shannon in the news, Mr. Moran said that he was unable to quantify any contribution that he may have had to that effect. He said that he had acted out of his "christian faith, obligations to his brothers and sisters" whether they be the people of Haiti, the homeless of Aungier St, the Iraqi people or the US soldiers, and that his primary motivation was not to draw attention to anything, but to save lives.

After more repitition of similar questions, Mr. Moran said that, yes, he did go to demonstrations at Shannon to help to draw attention to things. He then added that he also went to inform himself, as others, like Ed Horgan and Tim Hourigan had done, in their knowledge and exposure of covert things made overt.

There was then another short discussion as to describing the act, where Mr. Devally referred to it as damage, with Mr. Moran preferring to call it disabling the aircraft, and making it unable to fly.

Mr. Devally asked if the marches had been ineffective. Mr. Moran said that one of them had caused 2 US Military flights to be diverted, and that it had undermined the position of the US government, and had some effect media coverage, but with the language of shock and awe at the time, there was an impending sense of danger, added to by what he was told by Cathy Kelly whom he had met a week before the action. which caused him to reflect on what he should do.

Mr. Devally then referred to Mr. Moran's statement, made in custody that he had acted to save the life and property of himself and others. Mr Devally asked how Mr. Moran's act was to save the life of 'himself'

Mr. Moran replied that war can happen in any country, as subsequently demonstrated in London, Bali, and Madrid and that he was fearful that Shannon could be a target.

Mr. Devally: You were feaful that someone might target Shannon?
Mr. Moran: That fear remains
Mr. Devally: Did you fear that then, in Feb 2003?
Mr. Moran: Yes
Mr. Devally: Did you make it a target?
Mr. Moran: A target for seeds of peace.
Mr. Devally: You were fearful of a violent act?
Mr. Moran: Yes
Mr. Devally: Would it be legitimate it someone did?
Mr. Moran: It would not

14: 35 Brendan Nix S.C (counsel for co-defendant Karen Fallon) begins cross examination.
Mr. Nix : After your act of disarmament, were you surprised at the death and destruction?
Mr. Moran: I was not surprised at the deaths of 100,000 people
Mr. Nix: but were you shocked?
Mr. Moran: Yes.

Mr. Nix enquired about Mr. Moran's aunt, a nun living in Rwanda, and was told that she had briefly returned to Ireland at the time of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, but is now back in Rwanda.
Mr. Nix asked about a relation in Glenstal, and was told that an uncle of Mr. Moran had been a monk in Glenstal for 16 years.
Mr. Nix asked about Mr. Moran's travel to Haiti and was told that it was at the request of Mr. Moran's former school princple, and nun.
Mr. Nix asked if Aristide was president of Haiti at the time of Mr. Moran's visit. Mr. Moran confirmed that, and that Aristide had been ousted in a US backed coup at that time.
Mr. Nix asked if Mr. Moran was aware of the previous dictators of Hait, "Papa Doc" Duvalier and "Baby Doc" Duvalier. Mr. Moran indicated that he was aware of those, but that there had been no US invasion to get rid of the Duvalier regimes.

14:38 Michael O'Higgins S.C (counsel for co-defendants Deirdre Clancy and Nuin Dunlop) begins cross examination.

Mr. O'Higgins: You were in court when we discussed the Geneva Conventions with the officer from Co. Clare. Did you have any understanding of it at the time of your act?

Mr. Moran: Yes, the Geneva Conventions were brought in after World War 1 and WW2, to protect rights of troops, and civilians and to set rules of engagement.

Mr. O'Higgins: It criminalises breaches of the convention does it not?
Mr. Moran: That was my understanding of it.
Mr. O'Higgins: Were you referring to protecting people from those crimes?
Mr. Moran: Yes. God forbid it should happen here.
Mr. O'Higgins: You referred to the awful attacks in Madrid, and London, of course those countries, Spain and the UK, were members of the coalition. The attacks happened at random times and places, and so an attack could happen here, but not necessarily at Shannon but on a bus in Dublin or a train in Galway, is that your point?
Mr. Moran: Yes. War is a form of terrorism, and Ireland contributed to it.
Mr. O'Higgins: And you feared that might be how you could be attacked personally
Mr. Moran: Yes.

14:42 Witness steps down. Jury is sent out. the rest of the day was spent in a long legal argument.

save preference

Comments (16 of 16)

Day 7 to follow.

Thu Nov 03, 2005 02:29

Watch this space. Normal service will resume shortly.

Day 7 of Ploughshares Trial.

Thu Nov 03, 2005 06:56

WEDNESDAY 2nd November 2005
Circuit Court. Court 23
Four Courts.
Judge Donagh McDonagh Presiding.
DPP v Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Damien Moran, and Ciaron O'Reilly

Report based on notes of Court Reporters.

The jury had been told to be in for 10.30, but they were not brought down to court until 12.30 due to more legal argument and submissions in their absence (reporting restrictions apply)

Mr. Gilliosa O'Liodha (barrister acting as junior counsel for Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Moran) told the court he was calling a registered expert witness, a Mr. Geoffrey Oxlee.
Mr. Oxlee was sworn in and told the court that he was Geoffrey John Oxlee, a retired RAF Group Captain who had spent over thirty years in the Royal Air Force before he retired.
He also told the court that he had been on duty for the DISSP - Defence Intelligence Staff,
had trained in military intelligence from an early stage of his career,
was a graduate of the RAF Staff College, a graduate of the RAF Aerial Warfare College,
and had a Maths and Science Degree, as well as Being a member of the Association of Lawyers,
and a senior partner in a forensic imagery analysis company.
He said that in relation to the case, that his duty was not to the defendants, or whatever side may have called him, but to provide an expert witness to the court.

Mr. O'Liodha : Can a supply plane be a legitimate military target in a war?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. By reducing the number of supply assets, one could reduce the number of weapons and people available at the front where they are needed to fight.
Mr. O'Liodha: Is there a hierarchy in the range of available targets?
Mr. Oxlee: The first target should be the ones that inflict the most damage, those armed with weapons to attack , e.g. fighter, bomber jets. and after that the headquarters, airfields and support facilities including logistics/supply lines.
Mr. O'Liodha: If "Special Forces" found themselves deployed behind enemy lines, what might their attitude be if they came across a supply aircraft.
Mr. Oxlee : In my opinion, if it was empty it might be less useful than a full aircraft but in the absence of a better target, the Special Forces would "hit it" to deny the enemy an asset to use in war.
Mr. O'Liodha:Is it possible to say with definite certainty, that if one disables a single aircraft what the effect will be down the line?
Mr. Oxlee : No. Almost never, unless had very specific intelligence on its role. One could speculate or think, but even after a war has ended one can almost never pin point the knock-on effects of single actions. One cannot guarantee change or a chain of events. War is a very complicated miasma of events.
Mr. O'Liodha: Would that lack of certainty stop defensive forces taking such action?
Mr. Oxlee: No, they would do it.

12:37 Mr Devally [prosecuting] cross examines.

Mr. Devally: This trial is about events occuring on the 3rd Feburary 2003. At that stage, there was no war in Iraq isn't that correct?
Mr. Oxlee: correct
Mr. Devally: In referring to a defensive force, if there was one in this example,then it would be an Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein Isn't that who we'd be talking about?
Mr. Oxlee: the object of the buid-up was to attack the forces commanded by Saddam Hussein
Mr. Devally: You say in speculation that disabling an aircraft could harrass the opposing force?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes.
Mr. Devally: To draw attention or publicity, a political point...
Mr. Oxlee: I can only answer from a military perspective, but all military actions are involved or controlled by politics so I suppose it has a political effect, directly or indirectly.
Mr. Devally: No further questions.

12:40 Brendan Nix S.C (representing Karen Fallon) cross examined the expert witness
Mr. Nix: During the build up,the US already had significant forces in the area around Iraq, isn't that right?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, including the US Navy 6th Fleet.
Mr. Nix: And to a lesser extent, so did the United Kingdom's military forces.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. We did, and we still do, to a lesser extent.
Mr. Nix: Isn't it easier to fight a war with shorter supply lines, than say, moving forces half way around the world from the US to the middle east?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, that's a very long supply line. The forces needed to get extra supplies in before they could commence the attack.
Mr. Nix: Would you agree that they were at full tilt at that time?
Mr. Oxlee: I believe so.
Mr. Nix: What awards have you received?
Mr. Oxlee: an O.B.E, Order of the British Empire, from Her Majesty the Queen for services to Defense Intelligence.
Mr. Nix: And I believe that you served with the US military for a time?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. I spent 2 years seconded to the United States Navy, Armed Forces Intelligence in Denver, Colorado.
Mr. Nix: And I believe they made you an honorary member of the US Navy?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, they even made me a member of their Navy american football team there, a kicker, - honorary, because I'm old- I'd come out kick the ball and then bow out of the game.They made me an honorary Lieutenant in the United States Navy.

12:43 Michael O'Higgins S.C (representing Nuin Dunlop and Deirdre Clancy) cross examined the expert witness

Mr. O'Higgins: There is an old addage that an army marches on its stomach.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. That's correct.
Mr. O'Higgins: Or to put it another way, an army only operates as effectively as their logistics.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes.
Mr. O'Higgins: When fighting a war, one can do it in a number of different ways.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes
Mr. O'Higgins: One could have aerial bombardment, for example.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, that was very successful in Iraq.
Mr. O'Higgins: One could carpet bomb.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, ... well it depends on the target
Mr. O'Higgins: One could drop leaflets
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. One might do that to warn the public in an effort to minimise collateral damage. Of course, one mustn't give a warning in such a way as to increase the risk to one's own forces.
Mr. O'Higgins: One could also drop leaflets containing ... 'information', or what some might more cruelly call "propoganda"
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. Designed to turn the will of the people against their rulers.
Mr. O'Higgins: So, as overall strategy, one can choose to drop bombs or leaflets?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, but trying to subvert the population by leaflets is less common these days. There's more power in the UN to pressure governments for example.
Mr. O'Higgins: And also the internet?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. A powerful and dangerous tool in my opinion.
Mr. O'Higgins: Can you have military people try to achieve a military objective that on the face of it seems perhaps impossible? Say, to send 7-8 men to achieve a military aim which was considered most unlikely?
Mr. Oxlee: A suicide mission?
Mr. O'Higgins: Not necessarily, but very unlikely to succeed, but might inspire others to follow.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, these things happen. There was a ( book?) "On the Fringe" that referred to it as a "futile gesture that inspired others" . As part of psy-ops, psychological operations, it can inflict damage on the enemy too.
Mr. O'Higgins: One makes a judgement between the loss and the gain in what one hopes and what is the expectation.
Mr. Oxlee: It's a hard decision to send people to almost certain death, and it's one that is weighed up carefully.
Mr. O'Higgins: One must pick committed people.
Mr. Oxlee: Oh, yes. A commander would know his people, and they would be committed.
Mr. O'Higgins: Without wishing to trivialise it at all, for our experience, many of us would have seen movies such as "The Guns of Navarone" where the actions of a small number of people caused an important turn.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. It does happen. For example, the Dam Busters missions were regarded as such, although more recently they've been regarded as a military failure, as they lost a lot of people and aircraft, but didn;t have too much effect. You see the bombs they were using worked very well against concrete dams, but the dams that caused the most flooding were made of earth, and those bombs didn't work so well against those.
Mr. O'Higgins: But they caused inspiration.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes, but I can't say if that was the intent at the time
Mr. O'Higgins: Sometimes the call is correct, and other times they are honourable failures?
Mr. Oxlee: Well, we British are very good at celebrating honourable failures. One can never get enough good intelligence to predict precise outcomes. There's always a risk.
Mr. O'Higgins: More often than not?
Mr. Oxlee: Well, I think these days, with more hi-technology and intelligence there's a higher chance of success.
Mr. O'Higgins: You were aware of the resistance to the build up to the war?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. It was widespread.
Mr. O'Higgins: The UK government had to keep watch on it.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. They had to be aware of it.
Mr. O'Higgins: When they hear of an aircraft being disabled and a clarion call for others to join in, it would cause concern, especially if it reached what's known as a tipping point
Mr. Oxlee: If it happened, yes.
Mr. O'Higgins: Are you aware of Rosa Parks?
Mr. Oxlee: Yes.
Mr. O'Higgins: She dies last week aged 92. She was arrested in 1955 for sitting in a white man's seat on a bus and refused to move.
Mr. Oxlee: Yes. I recall that.
Mr. O'Higgins: When she sat down that day, she didn't forsee the full impact of her action.
Mr. Oxlee: I can't speculate about that. If it had been me, I would have been rather angry and stood my ground too.
Mr. O'Higgins: But a single act by a single person precipitated great change
Mr. Oxlee: From little acorns do might oaks grow.

12:55 Witness steps down - lunch break until 14:05, but more legal argument in the absence of the jury took place until 14:30, when Mr. Roderick O'Hanlon S.C. (representing Mssrs Moran and O'Reilly) called another witness, Mr. James Massey.

Mr. Massey told the court that he was born in North Carolina, and joined the United States Marine Corps at the age of 19, and was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. He was asked about his deployment between January 2003 and May 2003. Mr. Massey said that between January and March 20th he was deployed in Kuwait, 30 miles south of the Iraqi border, and on March 21st he invaded Iraq along with the rest of the forces, and was in Iraq until May 25th.
He told the court that he was a staff sergeant in charge of machine gunners, missilemen, and scout snipers.
He was asked if he was familiar with the use of Shannon by the US military.
Mr. Massey told the court that the 3rd Battallion 7th Marines regularly used Shannon Airport as a transit point, and that he would categorise it as a military supply and logistics port for transporting US Marines and their equipment.
He was asked the likely result of interfering with that, and said that it would reduce supply lines/logistics until arrangements were made to re-route for example through Germany.
When asked what he was doing in Kuwait in January and February 2003, Mr Massey replied "We were prepping and supplying, getting our beans, bullets and band-aids together, and receiving our Rules of Engagement".
Mr. O'Hanlon asked what Rules of Engagement had been received. Mr. Massey said that the Military Intelligence briefings that they received indicated that every Iraqi was a potential terrorist.
Mr. Hanlon asked where Mr. Massey had gone after Iraq.
Mr. Massey said that he had returned to the US and received an honourable discharge from the Marine Corps.

Mr. Devally S.C (prosecuting) then cross examined.
After clarifying that Mr. Massey was in charge of a group of 45 machine gunners, missile men and scout snipers, he asked about the transit spots to the theatre of war.
Mr. Massey said that Shannon and Frankfurt were the primary hubs.
Mr. Devally asked if Prestwick was an alternative.
Mr. Massey said that it was possible to use Prestwick.
Mr. Devally asked if Mr. Massey was in charge of organising logistics apart from the 45 men he was responsible for.
Mr. Massey said that he was only responsible for organising the embarking and disembarking and logistics for those 45.
Mr. Devally asked if Mr. Massey had any input as to how to transport the troops, for example which transport hub to use.
Mr. Massey said that his input did not extend to the choice of hub.
Mr. Devally repeated this point for dramatic effect, before Mr. Nix began his cross examination.
Halfway through Mr. Nix's first question, Mr. Devally interjected to say that he had forgotten to ask one question. "Did Mr. Massey have any dealings with the 5 accused prior to Feb 3rd 2003" to which Mr. Massey replied that he did not.
Mr. Nix, then resumed. He asked about the briefings on the Geneva Conventions, Rules of Engagement that Mr. Massey rec'd in Kuwait and Iraq while he was a Staff Sgt.
Mr. Nix : You received briefings on the Geneva Conventions, the rules of war?
Mr. Massey: That is correct.
Mr. Nix: And at the same time you got regular intelligence briefings, what did they indicate?
Mr. Massey: That every Iraqi was a potential terrorist.
Mr. Nix: And so the rules of engagement then were?
Mr. Massey: Shoot first and ask questions later.
Mr. Nix: But that's a breach of the Geneva Conventions is it not?
Mr. Massey: Yes Sir.
Mr. Nix: And did this happen?
Mr. Massey: Yes Sir. There were some thirty plus civilians killed that way, that I know of.

As the witness was being excused, the prosecutor interrupted again to say that he had just received information from Superintendent Kerins (who has been sitting in court each day) and had a question to pose to the witness.

Mr Devally asked Mr. Massey if he had knowledge of the US military use of Shannon on May 15th 1003.
Mr. Massey replied that he had no knowledge of it.
Mr. Devally said that Mr. Massey has asserted that his aircraft had been diverted to Frankfurt. Mr. Massey replied that that was the information that he had received through his chain of command.
Mr. Devally told him, that Supt Kerins had said that US military flights had used Shannon on May 15th 2003 and asked him if he understood that.
Mr. Massey replied that he understood.

At 14:40 Karen Fallon was called to the stand.
She was asked by her barrister, Mr. Nix, (who described her as a small quiet-spoken woman) to adjust the microphone for her height and speak up so that the jury could hear her.
She told the court that she was from the North of Scotland and worked as a marine biologist.
Mr. Nix asked if she was a person with an interest in world peace to which she replied "definitely"
She was asked how she came to be in Ireland, and said the she first came over to visit Ciaron O'Reilly as a social visit, and also to meet another friend who was returning to the US from Ireland.
She was asked if Ciaron had asked for her help in anything at that time. She told the court that he had asked her to help set up a Catholic Worker Group in Dublin.
Mr. Nix asked her what the Catholic Worker groups did.
Ms. Fallon replied that they vigil, and reach out to the dispossesed in society, and that they live in community.
Mr. Nix asked how she had come to be in Shannon on February 3rd 2003.
Ms Fallon said that she had gone to the St. Brigid's festival in Kildare and heard Denis Halliday and Cathy Kelly speak.
Mr. Nix asked Ms. Fallon to explain to the court who Cathy Kelly is.
"She's a lady from America who started Voices In The Wilderness. She went to Iraq, she helped people there".
Mr Nix asked what Voices In The Wilderness does. Ms Fallon said that they go to Iraq, they try to help people there, and also try to raise awareness of the situation.
Mr. Nix asked if she went to Shannon as a consequence of speaking with Cathy Kelly and Dennis Halliday, she said that she went to Glenstal first for a period of reflection, which was an intense time, and that she was very struck by what was going on, and afterwards, decided to go to Shannon.
She told the court that she went to the hangar, and made a shrine outside, including photos that she had received from Cathy Kelly, and that she damaged the aircraft as had been described in court on an earlier day. Mr. Nix asked what implements she had used. Ms. Fallon informed the court that she had used a giant inflatable tricolour hammer, and a normal hammer.
Mr. Nix then asked "Why did you damage the aircraft?"
Ms. Fallon replied "Primarily to stop them killing people. It's okay for us here, there's no-one bombing us every day"
Mr Nix asked about her understanding of the situation at the time. Ms Fallon told the court that prior to the 2003 'official' invasion, and "shock and awe" there was still the bombing going on since the 1991 attack on Iraq which had not genuinely ended.
Mr. Nix asked her if she had been aware of the build up. Ms. Fallon said that she had noticed it in Scotland, at Faslane, which is a British Naval base 40 miles from Glasgow. She told the court that there was increased traffic of boats and helicopters, a lot more gunfire on the firing ranges in the fields behind us, British and American personnel coming through and lots of jet overflights. She told the court that she had seen the Ark Royal come in during December 2002 to be loaded up. She said that the activity had increased steadily for a number of months and it was quite obvious what they were doing.
Mr Nix : Did you honestly believe that your action was to save life?
Ms. Fallon: This action could have saved at least one life, and if it only saved one life, then it was worth it.

Mr. Devally cross examined the witness:
Mr. Devally : As a citizen of the UK, and a resident here, would you object in general to a law making it criminal to destroy someone else's property?
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally: What do you believe changes it?
Ms. Fallon: It depends on the object. this was a plane that was part of the war machine to kill people.
Mr. Devally:Your not saying it's an unjust law?
Ms. Fallon: No
Mr. Devally: Mr. O'Higgins mentioned Rosa Parks' action against an unjust law. Are you hoping to get the law changed?
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally: After Rosa Park's action the law was changed. You're not trying to change the law?
Ms. Fallon: I'm not aware of all the details of her case. I am aware of her action though.
Mr. Devally: You were not interested in changing the law?
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally:In early February, you went to the St. Brigid's festival. How many trips did you make to Shannon before your action?
Ms. Fallon: None.
Mr. Devally: Where did you get the inflatable hammer?
Ms. Fallon: I took it from Ciaron's house.
Mr. Devally:Why did you carry it?
Ms. Fallon: I was frightened going in there. I thought if they were gonna shoot, then it would be harder to shoot at someone who was holding a giant inflatable hammer
Mr. Devally: Where did the hammer come from?
Ms. Fallon: I took it from Ciaron's house.
Mr. Devally: Mr. O'Reilly gave it to you.
Ms. Fallon: No. I took it.
Mr. Devally: Where did the Bible come from?
Ms. Fallon: I don't know.
Mr. Devally: Where did the Koran come from?
Ms. Fallon: I don't know.
Mr. Devally: Where did the candle-holders come from?
Ms. Fallon: I think those were mine. I remember making and placing the shrine, but not the origins of every single item, it's like asking me a shopping list from years ago.
Mr. Devally: Were you present when the door was broken.
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Devally: In carrying the inflatable hammer, were you making some sort of statement?
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally: Did you write slogans?
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally: Who did?
Ms. Fallon: I don't know. I was busy making the shrine.
Mr. Devally: Why?
Ms. Fallon: To commemorate the dead and those about to die.
Mr. Devally: You hoped it would be seen
Ms. Fallon: Yes. Shrines are designed for people to see them.
Mr. Devally: You agree that the writing was for people to see?
Ms. Fallon: I think so.
Mr. Devally: Did you expect it would be publicised?
Ms. Fallon: I have no control over that. I hoped some people working there might have seen it.
Mr. Devally: Were you aware of the woman who'd gone in a few days before.
Ms. Fallon: I'd heard something about it.
Mr. Devally:Were you aware that she'd been arrested?
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Devally: Did you think it was likely that you'd be arrested?
Ms. Fallon: Likely to be arrested? Yes.
Mr. Devally: Did you think it was likely that all the items would be collected?
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Devally:Was it your intention to bring publicity to this issue?
Ms. Fallon: My main intention was to save lives.
Mr. Devally: You wanted to stop the war?
Ms. Fallon: One person can't stop a war, but I wanted to do what I could. What my conscience told me to do.
Mr. Devally: So it alleviated your conscience?
Ms. Fallon: Not really.
Mr. Devally: Are you political?
Ms. Fallon: I'm just a person. like evryone else, I have views and opinions. I'm not a member of a political party.
Mr. Devally: I wouldn't suggest that you are party political. Are you involved in organisations, peace camps?
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Devally:Which ones?
Ms. Fallon: I've been in Peace Camps in Scotland and England.
Mr. Devally: For what purpose are these peace camps there?
Ms. Fallon: A protest against war and killing.
Mr. Devally: You're actions were a protest.
Ms. Fallon: No. This was not marching around with banners. There were extenuating circumstances, we smashed up a warplane, if that was just protest people would be doing it every day.
Mr. Devally: Why paint the words then?
Ms. Fallon: I didn't paint them so I don't know. I was making the shrine.
Mr. Devally: Mr. O'Reilly said things were done by consensus.
Ms. Fallon: I didn't disagree with them.
Mr. Devally: They have the hallmarks of a protest.
Ms. Fallon: You may have that opinon.
Mr. Devally: [refers to book of photos in evidence] Here we have a photograph of the slogans, in large letters, visible from a distance. Why do you think they're there?
Ms. Fallon: Probably to draw attention to the fact that Shannon was becoming a US military facility.
Mr. Devally:Did the paint disable anything?
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally: Can I suggest that it was a protest.
Ms. Fallon: You can suggest that.
Mr. Devally: You agree with the writing?
Ms. Fallon: I think it's okay.
Mr. Devally: what does the writing suggest?
Ms. Fallon: It suggests that this place is being used by the military?
Mr. Devally: And if you were carrying that on a banner, would that not be a protest?
Ms. Fallon: It would be a statement. It could be a protest or a vigil, it depends on circumstances. Just because someone has a banner doesn't make it a protest.
Mr. Devally: Are you afraid of that word "protest"
Ms. Fallon: No. I just don't agree with you.

This descending into a bit of a semantic argument for a few minutes, where Ms. Fallon repeatedly said that these things depend on context, and that she disagreed with the opinion of the prosecutor. During the cross examination, the prosecutor interrupter her many times, and this was objected to, and after a complaint by the Judge, the prosecutor apologised to Ms. Fallon for inadvertently being rude to her.

Mr. Devally: This whole action was a protest.
Ms. Fallon: This action was not a protest. It was an attempt, a small attempt to save lives.
Mr. Devally: You were trying to change policy, and people's views.
Ms. Fallon: Maybe we could have changed some people's ideas and they could have helped to stop the war too, but policy? No.
Mr. Devally: You disagreed with the US military use of Shannon?
Ms. Fallon: I was shocked. I thought that this was supposed to be a neutral country.
Mr. Devally: You were trying to bring it to public attention.
Ms. Fallon: The public was already aware, because of people at the peace camp.
Mr. Devally: Your action got publicity.
Ms. Fallon: I know it went to the media, but that wasn't the intention.
Mr. Devally: An article appeared on a website that very morning a couple of hours after your action.
Ms. Fallon: I don't know dear, I was in custody at the time.

At this point, Mr. Devally took exception to the answer and said "Do not patronise me in front of the jury or the judge." Ms. Fallon said she hadn't meant to. [many observers formed the opinion that it was the use of the word "dear" that Mr. Devally had taken offence to. Ms Fallon calls people 'dear' as a matter of habit]

Mr. Devally:This was all for publicity, to higlight the situation
Ms. Fallon: I disagree with that.
Mr. Devally: Were you speaking on behalf of the Irish people by carrying a hammer that said "Hammered by the Irish" ?
Ms. Fallon: No. That's incidental. They sell them in tourist shops like that.
Mr. Devally: Did you feel that the government should have changed it's stance?
Ms. Fallon: I don't think that they should have allowed it in the first place. It's supposed to be a neutral country. It's unconstitutional.
Mr. Devally:Who advised you about that?
Ms. Fallon: I have a book, a copy of the constitution
Mr. Devally:Are you aware that it is for the High Court to interpret the constitution? Are you aware of Edward Horgan?
Ms. Fallon: Yes. I know he took a case.
Mr. Devally: Are you aware that the government gave permission for these flights?
Ms. Fallon: It's my understanding that the permission was given later and backdated.
Mr. Devally: Can I suggest that you took things into your own hands?
Ms. Fallon: It was not a political protest against the government. It was an attempt to save lives.
Mr. Devally: You have come out with this mantra "to save lives", but at the time, your motive was a protest.
Ms. Fallon: No.
Mr. Devally: You stayed and waited to be arrested.
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Devally: You put on the ground these hammers with the insignia.
Ms. Fallon: Yes
Mr. Devally: You made a shrine, you stayed.
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Devally: Not for publicity?
Ms. Fallon: We stayed for accountability. If we'd run away, they'd probably never have caught us, and maybe they would have said it was terrorists or who knows what, and what would that have led to?
Mr. Devally:Not for the newspapers?
Ms. Fallon: You're trying to denigrate it as some smutty thing for the papers to write about.It wasn't.
Mr. Devally: I'm not trying to denigrate your act. Anyone looking at it might think it looks a lot like a protest, or peace camp with these shrines and banners. it was a protest. Do you deny that?
Ms. Fallon: I deny that.
Mr. Devally: No further questions.

15.20 Roderick O'Hanlon S.C (representing Mssrs O'Reilly and Moran) cross examination.

Mr. O'Hanlon: You are being ascribed motives now, but you signed the Statement of Faith at the time
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. O'Hanlon: Against the bombing of Iraq.
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. O'Hanlon: You spent about 3 months in prison after this action
Ms. Fallon: Yes, a few days short of that I think.
Mr. O'Hanlon: During that time, you prepared a criminal complaint about the US military use of Shannnon, did you not?
Ms. Fallon: Yes. Tim Hourigan brought me in the official Garda forms for it. I prepared my complaint and tried to give it to the Garda Siochana.
Mr. O'Hanlon: It sets out a rather detailed criminal complaint.
Ms. Fallon: Yes, but they didn't want to touch it. They wouldn't take it off me.
Mr. O'Hanlon: You've been described as a research chemist.
Ms. Fallon: Yes. I worked as a full time research chemist in a lab in England.
Mr. O'Hanlon: Worked long hours?
Ms. Fallon: 40 hours a week, sometimes more depending on the experiment.
Mr. O'Hanlon: how long did you do that.
Ms. Fallon: For 5 years.
Mr. O'Hanlon: Did the peace camp interfere with your jobs?
Ms. Fallon: No. Work was okay about it.
Mr. O'Hanlon: Since you were granted bail, you have returned to Scotland.
Ms. Fallon: I got leave to go earlier this year, but I had to be back a month before this trial. I complied with all the requirements.
Mr. O'Hanlon: And the painting, you didn't do it. And those who did do it, have explained it already
Ms. Fallon: that's correct.

Mr. O'Higgins' cross examination -
Mr. O'Higgins: Mr. Devally asked about Ed Horgan, and why you didn't take a court case like he did.
Who is Ed Horgan?
Ms. Fallon: He lectures in the University of Limerick. He's a former tank commander in the Irish Army. He's a very nice man.
Mr. O'Higgins: He took an action in the High Court.
Ms. Fallon: I think that happened after I was in prison.
Mr. O'Higgins: Are you aware that in the High Court, that you'd face expenses if you lose?
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. O'Higgins: And in Edward Horgan's case there were 10 barristers involved, plus the solicitors, so there were substantial costs.
Ms. Fallon: Yes. I am aware of that.
Mr. O'Higgins: Are you aware that there was a judgement of more than 50 pages in that case?
Ms. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. O'Higgins: One of the things it said in relation to one of the articles was that the question was a matter between goverments, not for citizens.
Ms. Fallon: Yes. I read that.
Mr. Nix: Just to clarify one thing Ms. Fallon. This complaint you wrote in prison. What paper was that written on.
Ms. Fallon: the official Garda criminal complaint paper.

Witness steps down at 15.30.
Deirdre Clancy called to the stand by her barrister Mr. O'Higgins
Mr. O'Higgins: Were you in Shannon on St. Brigid's day?
Ms. Clancy: No, the festival Feile Bride was a few days before, on a weekend, I think the 29th January.
Mr. O'Higgins: What happened then?
Ms. Clancy: We were disturbed by the developments. we'd heard Cathy Kelly speaking. she'd been to Baghdad previously and was making preparations to return there.I was moved by what she said. Her stories of people affected by the sanctions and it brought home to me that they were real people that were affected.It re-inforced my fears. Iraq already had enough hardships and bombardment. I was diesturbed by it all. It could only make the Middle East, and the world in general more dangerous.
Mr. O'Higgins: You were aware of aerial bombardments prior to March 20th?
Ms. Clancy: My understanding is that there was ongoing bombardment, and that March 20th was a massive escalation.
Mr. O'Higgins: What did you do after the feile.
Ms. Clancy: I went back to Dublin for a few days around then.
Mr. O'Higgins: When you got through the fence, what happened?
Ms. Clancy: We made our way to a hangar. I wasn't sure what might happen. Karen and Nuin made a shrine. I sprayed a slogan on the door.
Mr. O'Higgins: For what purpose?
Ms. Clancy: To commemorate those who died, and to object that more were about to die.
Mr. O'Higgins: Which slogan did you paint?
Ms. Clancy: "the War stops here"
Mr. O'Higgins: After that what happened?
Ms. Clancy: Ciaron and Damien pulled up the roller door a bit, we couldn't open it, but they could lift it a bit. I looked underneath. I saw a US Navy jet in the hangar.
Mr. O'Higgins: What did you do inside?
Ms. Clancy: I hit the plane a few times with a hammer.
Mr. O'Higgins: Why?
Ms. Clancy: To disable part of the war machine, that was designed to take lives.
Mr. O'Higgins: Is that a mantra or your honest belief
Ms. Clancy: It's my honest belief
Mr. O'Higgins: How old are you?
Ms. Clancy: I'm 35
Mr. O'Higgins: Where are you from?
Ms. Clancy: I'm from Dublin, I was born in Cork, but raised here in Dublin.
Mr. O'Higgins: Tell us about your education.
Ms. Clancy: I did an Arts degree, and an M.Phil in Trinity on Gender and Women's studies.
Mr. O'Higgins: Have you worked abroad?
Ms. Clancy: I worked in Stockholm for Ericsson as a lead editor on an E-learning project.
Mr. O'Higgins: Were you involved in university politics?
Ms. Clancy: I was involved in a few campaigns, including a boycott of Nestle, and women's groups.
Mr. O'Higgins: When did you return to Ireland from abroad.
Ms. Clancy: October 2002.
Mr. O'Higgins: When did you meet Ciaron O'Reilly?
Ms. Clancy: I met Ciaron in October 2002 at a public meeting. I also met Carmen Trotta of the New York Catholic Worker at that.
Mr. O'Higgins: You heard Cathy Kelly, Denis Halliday, Ciaron O'Reilly, and you watched the videos. Are these the factors that informed you?
Ms. Clancy: Amongst other things.
Mr. O'Higgins: Did you form a view of the war at that time?
Ms. Clancy: It seemed unprecedented, a pre-emptive strike. I had anti-war sentiments anyway, but it was obvious that the UN was to have no decision in this and that the US and UK governments were going to go ahead anyway.

15:46 Junior counsel for prosecution cross examines. [I didn't get his name, so will refer to him as Pros2]
The junior counsel asked his questions at a much slower pace than Mr. Devally did.
Pros2: You signed the Statement of Faith?
Ms. Clancy: Yes.
Pros2: When did you do that?
Ms. Clancy: I don't recall the exact date. It was probably before I went to Glenstal Abbey.
Pros2: You discussed in Glenstal Abbey what your response might be.
Ms. Clancy: And before that also.
Pros2: When did you discuss it?
Ms. Clancy: From the end of October onwards, although in October, I'd only met Ciaron at that stage, I met the others later. We discussed what kind of action would be appropriate.
Pros2: Did you got to protests at Shannon.
Ms. Clancy: Yes. I went to some of the demos there, I marched with other people.
Pros2: Where did these take place?
Ms. Clancy: At the airport.
Pros2: Where did they start from
Ms. Clancy:From Shannon Town Centre, I don't recall the name of the shopping centre.
Pros2: how often did they happen, these protests?
Ms. Clancy:Every couple of months I think at that stage.
Pros2: How many between October and Feb?
Ms. Clancy:I can't recall that exactly.
Pros2: So perhaps 2 or 3? Or perhaps more?
Ms. Clancy: That's probably about right, but I don't recall exactly.
Pros2: Were there just big demos or small ones also?
[Jury was starting to look rather disinterested at this point.]
Ms. Clancy: Small ones too I think, perhaps more frequent.
Pros2: There were small ones every other day. You didn't go to all of them.
Ms. Clancy: I went to demos at Shannon 3 or 4 times, I also went to vigils in Dublin.
Pros2: Were you satisfied with the response?
Ms. Clancy: Response from whom?
Pros2: You protested the war and the US military use of Shannon?
Ms. Clancy: Yes.
Pros2: Why were you unhappy with the US military use of Shannon?
Ms. Clancy: I felt it was a breach of our neutrality.
Pros2: So you were concerned with neutrality.
Ms. Clancy: It was one of my concerns.
Pros2: And you had a general concern about the build up to this war that you apprehended?
Ms. Clancy: Yes.
Pros2: If Ireland had not been neutral, then you wouldn't have been concerned about Shannon?
Ms. Clancy: Neutrality was not my only concern.
Pros2: Who did you expect to hear these protests?
Ms. Clancy:I think there were a few different targets.
Pros2: Who?
Ms. Clancy: The governments for a start. It was the US, UK and Irish governments who participated in it. I think the wider public were for the most part against it.
Pros2: So, you were protesting so that the government would change its approach during this build up?
Ms. Clancy: It was a hope, but it was also to express how we felt and to show solidarity with the Iraqi people.
Pros2: And to express to the government your opposition.
Ms. Clancy:They were aware of that.
Pros2: And yet you continued?
Ms. Clancy: Yes. I think that's important in a democracy.
Pros2: What was the response of the government?
Ms. Clancy: Seemed to be one of indifference.
Pros2: You were not happy with it?
Ms. Clancy: I don't recall how I felt about that.
Pros2: If the government had changed their approach would you have been happy?
Ms. Clancy:Yes.
Pros2: So, when they didn't change their approach, you would have been unhappy?
Ms. Clancy: It's possible. I don't recall my exact feeling about that.
Pros2 [to Judge] : Oh, it's just hitting 4pm [clocking off time for the Jury] I might need another 20-30 minutes with this witness.

The Judge conferred with others, and with staff, and decided that things would finish for the day and continue in the morning.

Thanks

by Paul - Member Ringwood Uniting Church Melbourne, Australia

Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:23

Thanks for the continuing updates. I'm emailling them around to supporters in Melbourne.

Thanks #2

by Michael R.

Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:30

Thanks indeed Court Reporter for all your detailed reports. Much appreciated.

Thanks #3

by Robbie Sinnott

Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:37

from the comprehensive court reporting and for the courage of all 5 PsP.

More thanks

by Fintan Lane

Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:42

Yes, much appreciated by those of us unable to be present. The detail is wonderful.

'Court Reporter' has proved an eagle-eyed observer of all manner of state shenanigans over the past few years! Well done.

thx for the report

by redjade

Thu Nov 03, 2005 17:47

and thanx for all the work done by all to get the news out. those of us not there really appreciate it.

as the jury decides let's all hope that the Pit Stops wont have to register the domain: PeaceOnReTrial.com :-)

Also appreciated by those of us who were present!

by Dr. Coilín ÓhAiseadha

Thu Nov 03, 2005 19:12

I was at the trial, listening intently all day Tuesday, and I am struck by the great detail and accuracy of Court Reporter's report.

This is of immense value to anybody who wants to know what is going on, now and for posterity. There has been some good coverage in some of the national papers, including the Irish Times and Irish Examiner, but you won't ever find this kind of detail in the old media. Journalists, future activists and historians will be privileged to have material of such good quality to work with.

I'd like to add some details about Damien Moran's testimony.

Damien spoke very well. He sounded and looked very clear and self-confident, occasionally making eye contact with members of the jury.

He took every opportunity to mention that he had acted in the interests of peace:
The shrine placed in the hangar included the Koran, the holy book of Islam, "Islam meaning peace".
His actions had been informed by a speech made by the former Assistant Secretary General of the UN, Denis Halliday, at a demonstration on 1 February, St. Brigid's Day, "St. Brigid being the patron saint of peacemaking".
And he referred to the Garda Síochána as the "guardians of the peace", a very apt, if paradoxical reference to the translation of the official Gaelic designation for the Irish police force.

I noted that Mr Devally made immense efforts to try to press Ciaron and Damien into stating that they had performed their action for the sake of publicity. (He later takes the same line in questioning retired RAF Group Captain Geoffrey John Oxlee.) Many closed questions containing specific formulations for the defendant to endorse.

Mr Devally asked pointedly about public demonstrations that Damien had attended in December 2002 and January 2003. I found his line of questioning confusing, as he seemed to blur the distinction between the different kinds of action, the marches and the action in the hangar, perhaps to create the impression that the decommissioning action had had the same intent as the marches.

He described the airport as a public place.

He attempted to lead Damien into saying that he had intended to "change people's minds". Damien made a fine distinction here, insisting that he had no power to change people's minds, that people had to make up their own minds, but that he hoped that people would join him in opposing the impending war.

He asked Damien to confirm that the purpose of the demonstrations had been to generate publicity. Again a lot of back and forth, with Damien wisely stating his intentions in words of his own choice.

When Damien eventually acknowledged that one possible effect of the action on 3 February might be "so that the offence in Shannon could be made more public", a much relieved Mr Devally replied: "Thank you."

Then, looking over his shoulder at the clock on the back wall of the courtroom, he added: "That took twenty minutes!"

On hearing that that this comment was considered inappropriate, he apologised.

Clearly struggling to make his case!

As soon as the case is over, I look forward to a presentation and discussion of the legal debates between counsel for the prosecution and the defence that arose at intervals, with the jury being sent out while the judge ruled on complex disputes as to how the case might or might not proceed. I understand that this discussion cannot take place now, lest some malicious party tell the jury about it.

Thanks again for setting such a high standard of reporting, Court Reporter!

Best regards,
Coilín.

"bound to the peace"??

Thu Nov 03, 2005 19:25

Colm - whose very name refers to the dove of peace - made a very witty comment at the demonstration by the Spire on Tuesday morning.

He noted that, if the decommissioning activists are found guilty, they might not be imprisoned, but be BOUND TO THE PEACE - !!

If so, it seems that the state can bind us to the war, but we have no way of binding it to the peace.

Best,
Coilín.

Meanwhile, on American TV....

Fri Nov 04, 2005 00:35

things are looking brighter!

No, really!

download a scene from the ABC series called 'Boston Legal'

this is one of the best rants i've heard about this whole stupid war - set within a court room! I hope the PitStops get a chance to see this download before the verdict comes in :-)

Quicktime Video (5.6megs)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Boston-Legal-tro.mov

Windoze Media Video (7.4megs)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Boston-Legal-troops.wmv

video found at:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/03.html#a5684

'Boston Legal' website on this episode:
http://www.boston-legal.org/6-witches/ep6-witches.shtml

Respect

by Lesley R

Fri Nov 04, 2005 00:43

dragondynamics20 at aol dot com

Sorry I can't be with you guys, but love & respect travel a long way....
Any chance of sendin us Scots some hammers to welcome our kid home?
Peace! Lx

Love peace and Thanks

by Joe Sheehan

Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:57

Thanks to the Pit stop people for having the courage and conviction to do what we all wished we were brave enough to do.
I wish you all of the very best and hope that you get the results you want.
Thanks to all for the regular detailed reports which mean those of us who can not be there are up to date.
Love and peace to you all,

Joe

Big up and props to court reporter

by eeekkkk

Fri Nov 04, 2005 14:04

next best thing to court tv

Yeah, good idea...

by Oli

Fri Nov 04, 2005 16:21

perhaps indymedia could have re-enactments using actors at the end of the day, like Sky did with the Hutton Inquiry and Jackson Trial!
Good to see whats going on. big shout out to the five, the note takers, and of course indymedia crew.

support and thanks from mozambique

by ronan white

Fri Nov 04, 2005 21:31

thanks court reporter. excellent work - feels like i'm in a court seat there, from here in mozambique. solidarity and love to karen, nuin, deirdre, damo and ciaron.

They shouldn't even be in court

by Richard Finlay

Tue Nov 08, 2005 21:06

read above

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Ploughshares Trial Report Days 6 & 7

Comments (16 of 16)