Jobstown NOT Guilty


Outside the Criminal Court of Justice this afternoon were, from third left:  Scott Masterson, Paul Murphy, Michael Murphy, Kieran Mahon, Frank Donaghy and Michael Banks


More as we get it.

Jobstown trial: Six cleared of Burton false imprisonment (Irish Times)

Earlier: Reverse Logic


Jobstown trial: Six cleared of Burton false imprisonment Iirish Times)



Sponsored Link

176 thoughts on “Jobstown NOT Guilty

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        Barristers get up in the morning though so they deserve it. Absolutely not wasted money. Heil Leo.

    1. realPolithicks

      This was a political trial from the getgo, the government parties including Labour were determined to push through water charges and this was an attempt to cut off the protesters ate the knees.

      1. Topsy

        realP. It’s called fascism.
        Will the DPP be issuing any warrants regarding possible perjury charges for any prosecution witnesses? Of course not. The trial will go down in infamy. The government, DPP, Gardai & judiciary tried to subvert the course of justice, but a jury of the their ( the 6) were not bullied and and gave the obvious verdict.

  1. MoyestWithExcitement

    Absolutely disgusting that this ever went to trial. At least there’ll be entertainment in watching all those crazies, with their bizarre obsessive hatred for Paul Murphy, having temper tantrums.

    1. Anomanomanom

      Most people that hate Paul Murphy hate him for a reason, I’m one of those people. But this getting to trial was a joke.

        1. Anomanomanom

          For one when he couldn’t get enough votes in my area he jumped ship to the first area that would vote him in. It showed me the stuff he’d been talking about(when in my area) was complete crap. Second he will hang on to any bandwagon just for votes. He would support anything that insures he gets back in.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            He represents people in poverty. Are they only to be found in your constituency? And your lime light “complaint” is meaningless. He annoys you and you are desperately searching for reasons to justify it.

          2. Anomanomanom

            I have justified it. look above your comment. And please dont use the poverty card. Nobody he represents lives in poverty, less be honest here.

      1. Topsy

        Anon. you hate him because he represents ordinary people. You need to change your facist blue shirt.

        1. Anomanomanom

          I’ve learned that when someone uses the “blue shirt” remark they are normally not to bright. First off it makes no sense any more and its the get out word because the intelligence for a difference of opinion is not there.

  2. bisted

    …hooray…nothing sums up the depths the labour party have sunk to more than this cynical attempt to stiffle the right to protest…

  3. Owen

    I wonder it they’ll have a book out by Christmas.

    “The Jobstown Six: the shocking tail of when a molehill was made a mountain”.

    1. De Kloot

      Flushed out to sea and ruining Dollymount Strand for the nice people of Dublin…. That’s where////

        1. Cian

          She’s 68, has 25 years as a TD. I don’t know if she’d run again.

          Possibly as President?

  4. Declan

    So does this mean the courts are free and fair or are they still part of neo-liberal elite – confused

    1. ollie

      It means the Jury were free and fair, courts are still corrupt.
      Don’t forget, the DPP brought this to trial.

      1. Declan

        The Judge’s closing remarks helped too, you have to acknowledge that. They’re logic set it out very fairly clearly

        1. pedeyw

          I believe the general idea is: The courts are corrupt cos like stuff and one time my friend got caught with some hash and didn’t get off.

      1. pedeyw

        You think there was some kind of conspiracy on the part of barristers? And that they put pressure on the DPP to prosecute on the off chance they would get the case?

    2. Happy Molloy

      It proves that this wasn’t a show trial, there was no foregone conclusion, and strengthens the notion of the independence of the courts to those who would doubt it, which is a good thing.

  5. Iwerzon

    Can Burton now been charged with falsely claiming she was imprisoned, wasting time and money, character defamation, etc.

    1. The Old Boy

      Enjoyable as that would be, the answer is a firm no. It would be contrary to the public good, said good being having an effective system whereby people can report crimes. Imagine if every time a rape trial, say, resulted in an acquittal, the complainant would be hauled over the legal coals. No-one would report a thing.

    2. Rob_G

      I wouldn’t imagine so, given that another defendant in a previous trial was actually found guilty.

      And also, that isn’t how the law works, thankfully.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          Here’s another hint. I didn’t say it was a show trial. I said it was a political trial. Dry your eyes.

          1. Iwerzon

            That’s you caught out with your lies Moyest – ha! Are you a politician in real life?

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            Oh noes! I referred to it as a show trial on a message board 2 months ago. I guess that means this definitely wasn’t a political trial like I just said, then. :D Poor Rob.

          3. Rowsdower

            Yeah sure, I mean you did the thing you claimed you didn’t but go ahead and try and claim the moral highground.

  6. Darren

    Where does this leave the young lad that was convicted in the Children’s Court? Doesn’t sit well that a minor is only person with this hanging over him. Hopefully the conviction is squashed as a result.

      1. Happy Molloy

        never mind, just found it in the post below.

        it’s a good point to raise, certainly should be appealed. didn’t go before a jury, haven’t time to read why but maybe because he was a minor?

  7. Mayor Quimby

    Hopefully Joan Burton can now take a civil case. These people are just the sort that would sue for false imprisonment if they were detained on suspicion of shoplifting

  8. Murtles

    You can hear the sound of the champagne corks popping. Not from the defendants but all the solicitors who made a mint out of this thanks to their buddies in Government.

    Next up, Leo to commission a report to see what went wrong. Roll on the gravy train…..

  9. Brother Barnabas

    Never thought I’d say this but I’d really like to hear what Joan Burton has to say now

  10. theflorist

    Sweet Jesus, what a waste of time and money. at least they won’t lower themselves to make political hay out of this….

  11. Listrade

    The judge’s comments were critical, not just in this verdict, but also highlighting what should be a public concern about the case. It was a simple decision of whether or not there was a means of escape. The judge identified two, saying the jury could also decide if there were others. It’s early, but it does seem that the helicopter support for the Gardai advising that they reverse, seems to suggest there was a means of escape.

    That’s it. False imprisonment. Means of escape. Yes or No.

    Instead the trial was about whether or not it was a peaceful protest. Just consider the RTE report for this verdict:

    It’s a rehash of the prosecution case. It’s almost as if they had it prewritten on the assumption there would be a guilty verdict and had to add in the last few paragraphs when it was not guilty.

    The whole intimidation and fearing for her life could play a part in why they didn’t leave the car on foot. But we know there was a second means of escape. The Gardai knew because they recommended it.

    Online discussions were about the peaceful or not nature of the protest. Sceptics bleating the line “Peaceful Protest” in mockery every time the case was discussed or Murphy’s name was mentioned. Leo warning of the loud left.

    All the media coverage discussed the “peaceful” nature of the protest. Water balloons and verbal abuse (my childhood summed up).

    But it was always about whether or not there was a means of escape. The prosecution’s hope of muddying the water through emphasing the aggression paid off. That’s all that was discussed and reported. I’m not saying that was a conspiracy or dictated by the DPP and/or others, it happens in a lot of court cases, the prosecution’s facts are reported, then not much else.

    Consider that. Consider that this was only ever about whether or not there was a means of escape, then review the media coverage. Even if you just review the RTE report, it’s hard not to see some injustice in the reporting. Think of all comments on here, pro and against the protesters. It was always their behaviour. Never that a skilled garda driver could just reverse out as advised by their colleagues who had an aerial view of the scene.

    Consider that. Give us one last mocking “Peaceful Protest”, then stfu.

    1. Cian

      Listrade, playing devil’s advocate. Can I put a different scenario to you. (I’m just using men and women to differentiate the parties – no other reason)

      A group of women corral a man into a room through intimidation/aggression/shouting.
      The man tries a number of times to leave through (a) the front door, (b) back door and (c) front window.
      Each time, the women see him and crowd around the relevant exit chanting at him. Intimidation keeps him in the room. He is there for three hours.

      (a) is this ” false imprisonment”?
      (b) if there was a fourth exit, say a back window, through which the man *could* have escaped, but never actually tried. Would it change your answer to (a)?

        1. Cian

          I think most people made up their minds about the Jobstown trial months ago.
          I was wondering about Listrade’s post (and, indirectly, the Judge’s comments) and if it were applied to a unbiased scenario how people would react.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Unbiased” Hmmmm. Ok. It seems to me that you are heavily implying that the verdict should have been guilty and that the judge was guilty. One could argue that, if that is feel, you are quite biased yourself.

          2. Johnny Keenan

            If you believe they put a man on the moon?! Man on the moooooon!
            Get with the programme dude

      1. Listrade

        We don’t need hypotheticals as we have an actual. The two examples aren’t comparable. In your version the individual isn’t in a vehicle, he doesn’t have garda support and he doesn’t have a helicopter with an aerial view telling the garda support that there is a means of escape.

        The judge gave two scenarios: on foot or reverse. The judge indicated that the video footage was reliable and overrides statements. If her only option was on foot, there would be less of a defence.

        Your example has none of the safe guards she had. Intimidation in those circumstances play a major part. Not when you’re in car surrounded by gardai and the gardai support is saying it is safe to reverse.

    2. Happy Molloy

      If it was so cut and dry then why would the jury need 3 and 1/2 days to deliberate?

      I’m happy with the result as I always trust in a jury as no one is in a better position to decide than they, but I do challenge the notion that this was a show trial and that there was no case to answer.

      1. newsjustin

        This. A note of realism.

        DPP doesn’t like being a laughing stock, and wasn’t on this occasion. This case will be a useful precedent for the future.

      2. Flattery

        Happy Molloy, just for the sake of clarity, the jury spent three hours and 10 minutes deliberating.

        I would similarly have a good amount of faith in the jury system. I also think Listrade is right, to an extent, that the nub of the issue was, legally speaking, very narrow and the evidence that was presented was astonishingly wide-ranging – I understand the need for context in these things, but there’s no way this trial should have lasted for 40 days. Promises made by Joan Burton on the campaign trail before the 2011 election seem to have precious little to do with the case at hand.

    3. rotide

      Come on Listrade, you’re better than this.

      As you said, the trial was about False Imprisonment. That is what the 6 were aquitted of. The trial was not about Peaceful Protest, no matter what the prosecution tried to say. Bleating on as if this verdict somehow validates one way or another if it was a peaceful protest or not is disingenious in the extreme.

      “The prosecution’s hope of muddying the water through emphasing the aggression paid off. That’s all that was discussed and reported.”

      No it didn’t. They lost the case. It didn’t pay off at all. Sure, that’s what was reported but there’s a good reason for that. If someone shouts Fire and there’s video of things on Fire, then that’s what the news will go with, even if the smoke is the real story.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        Amazing. Truly amazing. It’s absolutely nuts that you can see that written down in black and white and still press the post button.

      2. Listrade

        @rotide it paid off in terms of media coverage, not the verdict thankfully.

        Also, note the Judges comments on closing:

        “Judge Greally said that it was essential that the jury asked a series of questions on their way to reaching a verdict.
        The first is: “Was this a peaceful protest?””

        The jury were specifically asked to consider if it was a peaceful protest.

        1. rotide

          They were asked to consider yes, not give a finding. they were asked to consider many things. The only thing they actually found was that the defendants were not guilty of false imprisonment.

          fwiw, I agree with the jury’s verdict. I’m not sure how they could return any other verdict under the circumstances.

          1. Fergus the magic postman

            What circumstances? I’d like to hear your take on the circumstances you think they could not return any other verdict under.

          2. rotide

            If the facts of the case were different they could return a different verdict?

            Under the circumstances was bad phrasing. Any other forum and I would have edited that out.

  12. Johnny Keenan

    Yes! Yes! Yes!
    The #JobstownNotGuilty Are Free!!!
    This is brilliant news. The jury unanimously saw through the bullpoo lies and deception of the establishment and set theses fine patriots free.

    Have no doubt my country women and men this is full on going to galvanise all left leaning citizens.
    For too long the despicable backward establishment have bet down the liberal and poor of the state. This court victory today is the visible start of the end of austerity inflicted on the many by the few.

    C’mon Ireland let’s take this country back.
    Starting with #RteBias

    Information Is Knowledge
    Knowledge Is Power
    Power To The Peaceful

    Btw As far as I’m concerned and the jury have declared as much, a peaceful protest took place in Jobstown in November 2015. Where a group of protesters peacefully conducted a protest to highlight austerity measures inflicted on the poor by the rich. Tactically and peacefully the protesters were able to show one of the main instigators in this class war, i.e Joan Burton just how serious they can be using peaceful measures.

    Because of a court case took by the state against these protesters has been lost, now a precedent is set.
    It’s ok to protest peacefully in Republic Of Ireland.
    So let’s protest peacefully and regularly. And let’s knock the Craíc out of it. We’re Irish FFS!
    The Revolution is ongoing. Join in anytime ya can. It’s great craic peacefully exercising your civil rights, and knowing that it’s going to make a difference for ALL our citizens.


    1. Cian

      Hmm.. There has never been any problems with peaceful protests.

      What happened in Jobstown wasn’t a peaceful protest. And the jury didn’t declare that (to my knowledge). What they said is that nobody was imprisoned falsely.

      I’m open to correction if the jury actually said “it was a peaceful protest”.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            Ok then Brian. This is the thing I was just talking about. You asked for a citation to prove a protest was peacful. This means you assumed it was violent seeing as you want proof of different. Maybe I should go easier on you in future. Maybe you really do have lomited capacity.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            How many persons? What violence? What is your threshold for labelling an entire group of people as being involved in violence? If 100 people are peacful but 2 throw something, are they all part of a violent protest?

          2. Cian

            It really depends on the level of violence. If one person acts very violently – then it can’t be construed as peaceful. (I’m not saying there was any very violent act in the Jobstown protest).

            There is a middle ground between a peaceful protest and a violent protest – it’s not black and white.

            Personally, I believe that if protesters are hurling threats, insults or abuse it is not a peaceful protest.
            If protesters are banging on cars, it is not a peaceful protest.
            If protesters are jostling the Guards, it is not a peaceful protest.
            If protesters are ignoring the lawful direction of the Guards, it is not a peaceful protest.

            Same back at you: What is your threshold for labelling an entire group of people as being involved peacefully? If 100 people are peaceful but 2 throw something, are they all part of a peaceful protest?

          3. Cian

            And I didn’t labelling an entire group of people as being involved in violence. I just said that the entire group of people weren’t peaceful.

          4. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Personally, I believe”

            OK, so it’s totally subjective, right? Unless it was prosecuted as a violent event, it is your personal opinion that it was non peaceful. You’ve already implied you thought they should have been found guilty so maybe your opinion on the nature of the protest is quite biased? All those reasons you give are completely your own. Not following orders mean it’s not peaceful? “Jostling” the guards means it’s not peaceful? That’s your own personal reasoning and, to me anyway, sounds a bit off. It sounds like you’re trying to come up with principled ‘selfless’ reasons to justify your annoyance when it’s probably your right leaning natural emotional base.

          5. Cian

            You asked me what *my* threshold was.
            I answered, giving various scenarios. And I stand by these. None of these are acceptable everyday behaviour. How would you describe a group of strangers that came up to you and started shouting abuse at you, jostled you, and banged on your vehicle? Would you use the word “Peaceful”?

            Your turn: “What is *your* threshold for labelling an entire group of people as being involved peacefully? If 100 people are peaceful but 2 throw something, are they all part of a peaceful protest?”

          6. MoyestWithExcitement

            To answer your question, obviously no. And if the people who banged on my car were engaged in an organised protest because I took food from their children in school, I would consider that peaceful, yes. I certainly wouldn’t call it violent. It seems like you’re trying really hard to make some negative label fit them in order to take the moral highground over them and judge them.

        1. hans landa

          That lad who pleaded guilty to criminal damage of a Garda car. Totally non violent.

    2. rotide

      “Btw As far as I’m concerned and the jury have declared as much, a peaceful protest took place in Jobstown in November 2015. ”

      That is not what the jury declared no matter what your medication leads you to believe.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        He said ‘as far as i’m concerned they..’ That means that he has inferred their intent and reasoning while also recognising that they didn’t literally declare it. You evidently don’t know what ‘as far as I’m concerned means’ which, genuinely, I think could explain why you get so much wrong here.

        1. Johnny Keenan

          Moyest thanks for your defence. I’m as proud as Jobstown Peaceful Protester just vindicated from the court of our land by a jury of my peers.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            Rotide needs to make people feel small so that he can feel good about himself. He needs to feel superior to people. Next time he insults you, remember that. Pity, rather than anger, is probably the right way to think about him. For me, I also enjoy a healthy dose of schadenfreude.

      2. Johnny Keenan

        Rotide you are completely off form having a go at my mental state. It’s fine btw. With all your smartness you should have had a go at the date. I was a year off. Then I realised I made a mistake it was actually 15th November 2014 when the Peaceful Protest took place. Can you admit ya made a mistake Rotide. Can ya haw! Can ya haw! Ya bottom

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          If it makes you feel any better, I’m pretty sure he’s unhappy pretty much all the time.

        2. rotide

          I have no idea what your mental state is. The post above contains so much hyperbole, innacuracies, supposition and amazing leaps of logic that I just assume you are not thinking clearly and must be under medication.

  13. Spaghetti Hoop

    So six found not guilt and one juvenile found guilty. Will Burton be satisfied with that, plus the 12 million costs of the case that she initiated?

    1. Rob_G


      For umpteenth time, Burton didn’t initiate the case, the DPP did.

      Back to civics class with you.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        Oh well that settles it. People in different state organs never ever speak to each other outside official correspondence. They definitely don’t socialise together and sometimes help out friends. That never happens. I mean, in the real world it does but in Right Wing Fantasy Land it definitely doesn’t.

          1. Johnny Keenan

            Yes it does. The under current here states the establishment state did everything in its power to sentence for a long time 4 public representatives who happen to be from a political party that dare to question the motives of these establishment party’s.
            Cop on will ya!

          2. Rob_G

            This nefarious conspiracy must be pretty ineffectual, given that all the defendants in this instance got off.

          3. MoyestWithExcitement

            So unless they bought the jury, there can’t have beem anything nefarious going on? Mental.

      2. scottser

        and the dpp overlooks the fact of 30-odd gardai standing around watching it happen? i’d say everyone knew this trial was going to collapse.

        1. Kenny U-Vox Plank

          It didn’t collapse. Unfortunately there wasn’t a sympathetic ear on the jury who did they job. The Irish media didn’t.

  14. GiggidyGoo

    The media, when reporting this, listed in each report the name and address of the defendants. Can we have a list of addresses of those ‘witnesses’ who perjured themselves?

    1. newsjustin

      Who perjured themselves?

      Good luck to those who were found innocent today. But a small part of me has a slight nagging doubt about the verdict – on account of everyone telling me over the course of the trial that we should have no faith in the system, that it’s a corrupt system, that it’s a conspiracy by the politicians, law profession, DPP, Gardai and elites.

      I mean, #jobstownnotguilty wasn’t even trending on twitter yesterday you know. So I really don’t know what to make of it.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        The decision / judgement was made by people outside of the political, legal, DPp, Garda professions. The proceedings were delayed for a couple of days due to initial statements/directions by the judge on the summing up. She took another day to balance her initial summing up as far as I can see.

        Like rotide below, your attempt at diversion is poor.

    2. rotide

      Sure thing giggidygoo. Maybe we can have the names and addresses of witnesses who give evidence in unsuccesful prosecutions on drug gangs too?

      What could possibly go wrong.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        If those witnesses tell lies, obstructing the course of justice, then they should be charged with that and yes, their addresses published in the media. Sauce for the goose.
        According to the judge, some Gardai gave evidence under oath that was negated by video. No enquiry needed, they need to be charged (and if they are, their addresses should be published in every article about such a case).
        Sure thing rotide… your attempt at diversion was weak.

  15. De Kloot

    I appreciate it has not existed for years, but the saddest thing that I see in this whole debacle is that this is now the final nail in the coffin in Ireland’s Labour Party. Those who’ve held senior roles in the Labour Party anr and have been for years indistinguishable from the rest of the snouts in the trough. I firmly believe that we need a strong Labour movement that looks beyond nationalist ideologies. But today, it’s all been corrupted.

      1. De Kloot

        Labour are/were a party with national spread and with the ability to run candidates in almost every constituency. Solidarity is a million miles from there. Up until the last election they probably have more capacity to run in all constituencies than Sinn Fein – happy to be corrected. Anyhow, for their size and to poll a tiny bit better than Solidarity and SDs is seismic – politically speaking. A national movement utterly destroyed…. It’ll take a couple of generations to rebuild and even then… I can’t see Labour being welcomed into an alliance of the left either… A weak Labour party is the gain of everyone else from centre left to hard left….

      1. Steve

        You’re gonna need labour if you want left leaning government. Too many small parties in Ireland.

        Labour , solidarity , soccies , shinners need to form one party. It’s the only way of getting anywhere close to forming a government

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          I don’t disagree with that. We don’t “need” Labour though. Their brand has been toxic for years.

          1. hans landa

            Labour party are the only left leaning party with the balls to go into government. The rest are either terrorist sympathisers or career ‘protesters’ with no intention of ever actually governing.

  16. Fully Keen

    Dirty deeds and there done dirt cheap.

    What a colossal waste of money and time.

    We like to pretend we are ruled lightly but in fact we are ruled with an iron fist. Most don’t care to notice.

    What a strange little backward island we are.

    Is it Friday yet?

  17. shitferbrains

    I would assume that if the Garda driver had started to reverse then the protesters at the front would have moved around to the back ?

  18. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

    This whole thing was a shambles from start to finish.
    I cannot STAND Paul Murphy, though. He’s such an opportunist.

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      Yeah! He’s always there speaking up for the rights of people who live in poverty, the selfish gobsheen!

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          You *did* call a man who is known to the public because he represents the interests of the poor an opportunist. What else is he being an opportunist for? Is he trying to promote his classical guitar album? His wooly jumper business? What?

        2. Brother Barnabas

          Last week you said Nelson Mandela was “nothing more than a whinger with a suntan” and the week before you said Gandhi would be “rightfully remembered as an attention-seeking weakling”. So it’s not like you don’t have history, in fairness,

          1. hans landa

            He’s an opportunist because he preys on the so called poor and sells them an un-achievable dream. All he needs is needless protest after protest after protest and he’ll get elected every time. He must be rubbing his Goatstown mits together with these bin charges coming down the tracks

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            “so called poor”
            “un-achievable dream.”
            “his Goatstown mits”

            Yeah, meaningless right wing slogans and personal invective is what I expected.

  19. Kenny U-Vox Plank

    FANTASTIC! That means Miriam O’Callaghan will have a readymade load of guests for her great show on Saturday.

    And they will all be on #MARIAN on Sunday morning reviewing the papers!

    Is there a typeface for irony?

  20. Kenny U-Vox Plank

    Cue article by Úna Mullally in support of Burton/Zappone immediately.

    The Labour Party support now even lower than the Irish Times readership. Odd that.

  21. WhiteKnight

    Great news!
    And the UK will fund abortions for NI residents so Davey Quinn is in a flap.

    This day gets better and better!

    1. anne

      hmmmm.. funny seeing a comment down here for you.

      Have you forgotten (again) that you don’t comment on threads with a lot of comments according to yourself..that not one single fupp is given about either way.


  22. I'm "alright" Jack. Mad Jack is on annual leave.

    I hate these people. Let’s face it they are recalcitrant scum, both defendants and alleged victim. Nonetheless the pathetic attempt to indict them on these trumped up charges are even worse than the so called false imprisonment claims. To me these people are just like a pair of old mangy dogs chewing lumps of each other scabrous ears down a back alley . They have nothing to offer this country.

  23. Truth in the News

    What we had was political show trial, the only reason it was persued was to blunt
    the will of the Right to Water protest when it was seen there was opposition to
    the meters and on the streets, who instructed and directed the Guards in their
    “campaign” from the political establishment, and organised and controlled operation
    “Mizen” from within its ranks, perhaps Noirin might enlighten us.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link