Ploughshares Trial Day 8

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report Saturday November 05, 2005 14:33 by Court Reporter

Final day of testimony sees high profile witnesses

Deirdre Clancy gave the rest of her testimony, followed by Nuin Dunlop. The junior prosecutor bored the jury while he made insinuations about Ms. Clancy's religious beliefs, the existence of a ringleader in the group, and hidden desires to get arrested. The senior prosecutor tried to portray Ms. Dunlop as not having thought the action through very well. Both ladies explained quite well the real context and motives of their action, from what they knew of the impending shock and awe, and the concerns for the people in Iraq.
After lunch Cathy Kelly of Voices in the Wilderness and former UN Asst Secretary-General Denis Halliday testified as to what they had told the defendants about the situation in Iraq when they attended a peace conference in Kildare shortly before the action. Both of them related the first hand experience of the hard realities of Iraqi life to the jury as they had done to the defendants. This report is not verbatim, and is based on notes taken in court.

rPP v Deirdre Clancy, Karen Fallon, Ciaron O'Reilly, Damien Moran and Nuin Dunlop.

Presiding judge : Mr. Donagh McDonagh

Prosecuting Counsel : Conor Devally S.C.
Luan O Braonain BL

Defence Counsel:
Roderick O'Hanlon S.C
Giolliosa O'Lidheada B.L
(Representing Ciaron O'Reilly and Damien Moran)
Michael O'Higgins B.L.
Muireann Grogan B.L.
(Representing Deirdre Clancy and Nuin Dunlop)

Brendan Nix S.C.
Michael Dreelan B.L.
(Representing Karen Fallon)

Defence Solicitor: Joseph Noonan. (Noonan Linehan and Coffey Solicitors)

Court started at 10:45, and after a new jury guard was sworn in, Deirdre Clancy returned to the stand. Junior counsel for the prosecution, Mr.Luan O Braonain, continued his cross-examination.

MR. O'RAONAIN: When we finished yesterday, we were talking about protests prior to the 3rd February 2003, isn't that right?
MS. CLANCY : Yes, that's correct.
MR. O'RAONAIN: I asked your view as to who the protests were targeted at, isn't that right
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: After the 3rd February 2003, were you involved in protests?
MS. CLANCY : Well, I was in prison for a few weeks after that, but when I got out I did attend some protests.
MR. O'RAONAIN: And these protests, did they take place in Dublin, or elsewhere?
MS. CLANCY : In Dublin [the defendants were banned from County Clare for over a year, later reduced to a five mile radius from the airport]
MR. O'RAONAIN: Is there a difference between a vigil and a protest? Perhaps you could explain to us ordinary people who might not know so much about that.
MS. CLANCY : In my opinion, a vigil commemorates something, it's an act of commemoration. [missed the rest of that answer due to acoustics]
MR. O'RAONAIN: So a vigil ha an added dimension that a protest might not have?
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: A bystander might see banners, and placards and things and it would look like a protest
MS. CLANCY : Some of the elements of what you call a protest would be there, but there would also be extra elements to commemorate something or someone.
MR. O'RAONAIN: In October 2002 you became interested in the Catholic Worker movement?
MS. CLANCY : I had an interest in it before, I had read about it the Catholic Worker movement and liberation theology.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Would their beliefs be Roman Catholic or catholic in a more universal sense
MS. CLANCY : I'd say catholic with a small 'c' in a more universal sense. Not all members of the Catholic Worker Movement have a strong relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, but many do, some are atheists, some are Buddhists, it's a very diverse movement.
MR. O'RAONAIN: I take it since you went to the monastery in Glenstal that you have a Catholic Faith?
MS. CLANCY : I don't have an exclusivist view of Christianity. I think other religions are also valid. I would say I'm less centred on the institutional church.
MR. O'RAONAIN: I ask because one of the items at the shrine was a set of rosary beads. Those are part of the Catholic religion.
MS. CLANCY : Yes they are.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Are they a tool you would use?
MS. CLANCY : I have used them.
MR. O'RAONAIN: I notice that when you took the stand, that you chose to affirm, rather than swear on the Bible [note for readers: In Irish courts one can affirm the oath. It's an almost identical oath the tell the truth, but doesn't mention God or involve placing a hand on the bible. All of the defendants, and some of the witnesses chose to affirm]
MS. CLANCY : Yes, that's right.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Can you explain why?
MS. CLANCY : It was a decision we came to that it would be more appropriate to affirm
MR. O'RAONAIN: How so?
MS. CLANCY : I'm not comfortable with using the bible in a courtroom. It's no reflection on my intent to tell the truth, I feel that the bible is a sacred text, and for reasons of a historical context, I feel it's more honest to make an affirmation in court.
MR. O'RAONAIN: When did you decide on that? Who made that decision?
MS. CLANCY : I can't recall, it happened organically through discussion
MR. O'RAONAIN: Before or after the incident?
MS. CLANCY : After the incident, yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: When did you sign the Statement of Faith?
MS. CLANCY : I don't recall the exact date.
MR. O'RAONAIN: When approximately?
MS. CLANCY : I believe it was something we put together shortly before we went to Glenstal
MR. O'RAONAIN: It was discussed with great care?
MS. CLANCY : Yes, it went around to each of us
MR. O'RAONAIN: Was it presented to you in that form, and you were invited to sign it, or did you put it together?
MS. CLANCY : I'd say it was more of a collaborative effort.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Was the bones of it presented to you?
MS. CLANCY : What do you mean?
MR. O'RAONAIN: Did someone present the main part of it?
MS. CLANCY : I think we all made and took notes, and discussed it. I can't be more precise as it was some time ago.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Was it put together in the context of the act?
MS. CLANCY : It was put together in the context of the build up, in the probability that we might got to Shannon.
MR. O'RAONAIN: What you describe is rather vague. Were there discussions about the act?
MS. CLANCY : I don't follow you.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Were there discussions to enter Shannon and do an act like this?
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Can you tell the court when did those take place?
MS. CLANCY : Between October and February, or perhaps a shorter period.
MR. O'RAONAIN: From October?
MS. CLANCY : They took place over a period of time, but the discussion changed with time and events. I had only met Ciaron in October, I met the others later
MR. O'RAONAIN: Can you recall who initially mentioned going in to the airport and disabling a plane?
MS. CLANCY : I think it was me.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Are you somewhat familiar with the Ploughshares tradition?
MS. CLANCY : Yes. I'm somewhat familiar with the Ploughshares tradition in the US.
MR. O'RAONAIN: What is your understanding of it?
MS. CLANCY : It involves disarmament of the weapons of war, and is described as prophetic, although that's an arcane term that simply means looking to a better future.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Is it your understanding that it involves the use of symbols?
MS. CLANCY : It can do, it depends on the actions and the individuals involved. Some people use symbols, some don't. In our case it was a consensual decision to use them.
MR. O'RAONAIN: And a consensual decision to use hammers and paint slogans?
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Did you also discuss the consequences for you, such as possible arrest and prosecution.
MS. CLANCY : We discussed a lot of possible consequences, not just arrest.
LOB: And your fears were well founded.
MS. CLANCY : Indeed.
MR. O'RAONAIN: So it was no surprise to be arrested and prosecuted?
MS. CLANCY : I wasn't surprised. The Ploughshares movement has a tradition of hope, that people in authority may join in. Some might call that naive, but without that hope, the Ploughshares ideology is meaningless.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Common sense would inform you that you would be arrested, as the act was illegal.
MS. CLANCY : Common sense informed me that the civilians of Iraq were protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. I upheld the law, I did not act to break it.
MR. O'RAONAIN: You said there was a hope, which some say is naive that people in authority might join in, such as the Gardai
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: But you didn't announce your presence
MS. CLANCY : No.
MR. O'RAONAIN: And you had to get past the perimeter fence
MS. CLANCY : That's correct. It was fairly flat after that.
MR. O'RAONAIN: You were working undercover up to the point where you entered the hangar
MS. CLANCY : I wouldn't say we were undercover. We weren't in balaclavas and black clothing. I think that's a misleading way to say it. We walked to the hangar and stayed around after our action.
MR. O'RAONAIN: And so making it more inevitable that you would be found out.
MS. CLANCY : I think that's a distortion. We decided to take responsibility for our out actions.
MR. O'RAONAIN: With a hope that others might join in?
MS. CLANCY : Yes. But if no-one joined in, we were prepared to take responsibility for our acts. Our hope was that people would join in, and in the absence of that I knew that we would probably be arrested and prosecuted.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Is part of that thinking to be arrested and tried?
MS. CLANCY : That's not the main idea. Why would someone want to do this, and disrupt their life so much if it was not an act of conscience? We acted to save lives, we didn't want to get arrested or seek a trial.
MR. O'RAONAIN: You said it was part of the idea to be tried
MS. CLANCY : That's not what I said. I said that part of the Catholic Worker tradition involves taking responsibility. I thought that there was a strong probability that we might be arrested, but the main ethic is accountability.
MR. O'RAONAIN: There are a great number of public events surrounding this trial.
MS. CLANCY : How do you mean surrounding?
MR. O'RAONAIN: Isn't there a walk every morning from the spire? And public talks in the evenings?
MS. CLANCY : Yes, those are mainly initiated by people other than the defendants.

MR. O'RAONAIN: I'm not suggesting that they are inappropriate. I 'm suggesting that the trial provides a focus for those events.
MS. CLANCY : They coincide.

MR. O'RAONAIN: Did you know that was normal in a ploughshares trial?
MS. CLANCY : Actually, I had no idea at the time, I had no experience of a Ploughshares Trial. The events outside the court are mainly initiated by other people. The events are not primarily about the trial, but about the victims of war and human rights abuses.
MR. O'RAONAIN: I put it to you,,, that to suggest those events are not about the trial is,,, unreal.
MS. CLANCY : No. they're not primarily about the trial. They're about solidarity for the victims.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Was there any discussion about what items to bring?
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
MR. O'RAONAIN: And that they would be made exhibits, along with the slogans painted on the hangar?
MS. CLANCY : It didn't strike me when I was painting the slogan that it would end up as an exhibit. I had many other things running through my mind at that time.
MR. O'RAONAIN: what about the items brought for the shrine? You brought them to the scene so that they would be brought to the trial. [Mr. O'Higgins S.C. made an objection to the form of the question and it was rephrased] Was there discussion among you to bring items such as those to the action so that they could be brought to the trial?
MS. CLANCY : No. They were brought as a way of commemoration of the dead.
MR. O'RAONAIN: [Asked a speculative question, which I haven't fully noted]
MS. CLANCY : I'm not speculating about that
MR. O'RAONAIN: It struck me that you were embarrassed about spray painting the slogans.
MS. CLANCY : No. I'm not embarrassed.
MR. O'RAONAIN: You consider it was a proper and appropriate part of the action?
MS. CLANCY : I would say yes. I thought it was integral to the action.
MR. O'RAONAIN: you described your intent to do something to resist the build-up to war isn't that right?
MS. CLANCY : Yes.
LOB:It seems to have been your intent prior, and at the time of the action and your intent when protesting afterwards.
MS. CLANCY : Any protests that I took part in were against the build up, the escalation, the effects of Depleted Uranium, and as an act of solidarity with the victims.
MR. O'RAONAIN: Thank you.

Mr O'Higgins : I neglected to ask a couple of questions. Where were you during the 9-11 attacks in New York?
MS. CLANCY : I was in the United States at that time.
Mr. O'Higgins: You witnessed the fall out to that atrocity. Did it inform you to anything?
Ms. Clancy : It felt as if the whole climate over there changed overnight. And I can understand why it might in the face of something like that. I'd like to say that I hold the US in a high regard on many levels, so I don't want this misconstrued as an anti-US view as I have been accused of previously. There was an over -reaction, people spoke of responding by bombing indiscriminately, and using the nuclear option.

Mr. O'Higgins: Mr. O'Raonain mentioned that you affirmed rather than affirmed. [turns to Judge's bench] I wonder if the registrar might read for the court the words used in affirmation?

At this point the registrar stood, and automatically faced the witness box as if administering the affirmation.

He read the formal words of the affirmation "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give to this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

Mr. O'Higgins thanked the registrar, and turned to Ms. Clancy.
Mr: O'Higgins: Are those are the words you used when you took the stand?
Ms. Clancy : Yes
Mr.O'Higgins: You understood them?
Ms. Clancy: Yes.
Mr.O'Higgins: You understood the obligations?
Ms. Clancy: Yes I did.
Mr.O'Higgins: Is the obligation to tell the truth qualified?
Ms. Clancy: No. It's not qualified, it's absolute. My answer to [Mr. O'raodain] about choosing to affirm was nothing to do with the obligation to tell the truth, but about the way the obligation is offered.
Mr.O'Higgins: In your view, whether you chose to swear or affirm, is there a lesser obligation to tell the truth if you affirm?
Ms. Clancy: No.

[It may interest readers to note, that the Irish courts and the barristers working therein would be well aware that no difference exists in court between the oath and the affirmation and is made clear by The Law Reform Commission's Report on Oaths and Affirmations 1990 -
the link is http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/volume8/lrc_59.html and I have included some relevant excerpts here.

The report states that Canon Law was originally against the swearing of oaths as being blasphemous. Under the chapter 3. Statutory intervention Section 2.11 explains that the courts recognise that the choice to affirm rather than to swear is due to a religious belief rather than an aversion to be truthful in court.

The exclusion of atheists and agnostics from giving evidence was not the only difficulty created by the common law rules relating to the swearing of oaths. Members of certain Christian sects, namely the Quakers, the Separatists and the Moravians, refused to be sworn on the grounds that the act of swearing was blasphemous. For such persons, it was precisely the strength of their belief in divine accountability which prevented them from taking the customary oath. In order to permit persons of such religious convictions to be 'sworn' within the confines of their faith, the law therefore developed the affirmation "a formal declaration, without direct reference to divine authority, that the witness recognises and will uphold his full obligation to tell the truth."
Section 2.13 of the same paper explains how this has been the case since the Oaths Act of 1888.
The rigour of this rule was alleviated somewhat by the Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1869 and the Evidence Amendment Act, 1870 which substituted for all proceedings a requirement that the person having authority to administer oaths should be satisfied, on objection, that the taking of an oath would have no binding effect on the objector's conscience. Finally, by the Oaths Act 1888,80 all of the above enactments, apart from those relating to Quakers, Moravians and Separatists, were repealed, and the abolition of all restrictions on the testimony of agnostics and atheists was made explicit. Sections 1 and 3 of the 1888 Act provide as follows:

1.
Every person upon objecting to being sworn, and stating, as the ground of such objection, either that he has no religious belief, or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief, shall be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath in all places and for all purposes where an oath is or shall be required by law, which affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as if he had taken the oath; and if any person making such affirmation shall wilfully, falsely and corruptly affirm any matter or thing which, if deposed on oath, would have amounted to wilful and corrupt perjury, he shall be liable to prosecution, indictment, sentence, and punishment in all respects as if he had committed wilful and corrupt perjury.

3. Where an oath has been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom the same was administered had, at the time of taking such oath, no religious belief, shall not for any purpose affect the validity of such oath. ]