Trial of garda charged over street protest begins (1 Viewer)

[f.a.q]

from todays Irish Times breaking news section

Last updated: 24-06-03, 14:42

The first garda to be tried in connection with the "Reclaim the Streets" protest last year appeared in Dublin District Court today.

Garda Keith Goff, from Mountjoy Garda Station, denied assaulting Mr Brian Hayden at the rally on Dame Street in Dublin on May 6th 2002.

Mr Hayden, a student, said the atmosphere had been jovial for the most part, but scuffles later broke out between gardaí and demonstrators.

He told the court he saw one man being beaten with batons by two or three officers and he had been hit on the head from behind.

Video evidence of the event is to be shown at a later stage in the trial, which is expected to end later this week.

Seven gardaí were charged after the operation to break up the protest in which 24 people were arrested after baton-wielding gardaí moved in.

Fourteen people were injured in the Garda operation, which was recorded by cameramen and photographers. Protesters allege gardaí used excessive force.

The trials of other gardaí charged in connection with the incident are due to begin later this year.

 

[path]

And he got away with it.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=52868

 

[pete]

And he got away with it.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=52868

He "got away with it" for some REAL shaky reasons - like no actual direct evidence of him hitting anyone, and the victim changing his story.

I'm actually afraid to open that indymedia link for fear of embarrassment at what i may see there.

No, i think i will....

 

[redflaremist]

He "got away with it" for some REAL shaky reasons - like no actual direct evidence of him hitting anyone, and the victim changing his story.

Witnesses seeing him hit someone were not called.

Victim had no problem admitting that he confused one Garda with another (he thought the same Garda who hit him in the arm [Goff] was the same one who hit him in the neck, but it wasnt, and he admitted he was wrong), but he did not change his story about being beaten.

I know this: because I sat in the court for the past 2 days.

More evidence and witnesses should have been allowed.

 

[pete]

witnesses saw "someone", or specifically brian hayden being hit by Goff?

At what point was hayden's story changed? Why? Why did the DPP allow the case to proceed without verifying the story?

quote from that indymedia page:

Reverse the roles. A Garda claims that a protestor was swinging a stick in the middle of the street - but there isn't proof in court that he actually hit the Garda. How happy would you be to see him convicted of assault? The courts would probably find him guilty, and we'd all scream miscarriage of justice, corrupt judges etc. It would be wrong then, and it would be wrong in this time. And although the exclusion of witnesses in this case may have been a deliberate and sinister action, eyewitness evidence has a horrible record of misuse..."honest, I saw the Irishman running away from the pub ten minutes before the bomb went off". The answer is not in lowering the standards of justice for Gardai, but increasing them for everyone else.

 

[pete]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0625/9news/9news56_6a.smil

 

[f.a.q]

from that indymedia link

The judge has decided that the evidence given by Brian Hayden, despite describing him as an honest and forthright person, is not reliable "in a legal sense", and would not be enough to ensure a safe conviction against Keith Goff.

So, being an honest person in "real" life does not mean being honest "in a legal sense"...hmmmm interesting.

 

[pete]

the judge said his EVIDENCE was not reliable 'in a legal sense', not the person. The RTS press release I think you're quoting from was hardly balanced....

 

[pete]

the judge said his EVIDENCE was not reliable 'in a legal sense', not the person. The RTS press release I think you're quoting from was hardly balanced....

page 4 of todays irish times has a pretty interesting report on the case