A Dublin environmentalist walked out of a Dublin court last week without sanction, despite pleading guilty to causing #1,400 worth of damage to property in Trinity College.
In a remarkable judgement, which effectively seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of direct political protest, the judge, Timothy Crowley, refused to impose either a jail sentence or a fine when Éanna Dowling pleaded guilty to charges of causing criminal damage - instead using the Probation Act to dismiss the case. The verdict is being seen as a victory for environmentalists, who are waging a campaign against the planting of genetically-engineered crops in Ireland.
ON BAIL
The saga began on Friday March 13th, when Éanna Dowling and a group of environmental activists sprayed graffiti highlighting the dangers of genetic engineering on the new Smurfit Institute of Genetics building in Trinity College. The action was timed to cause maximum embarrassment to the Department of Genetics in Trinity College, as the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was due to open the Smurfit Institute building the following day.
Drawing attention to American corporation Monsanto's controversial planting of genetically engineered sugar beet in Carlow, the activists sprayed "GENocide", "Monsanto Murder" and "No GE sugar beet in Ireland" on the side of the genetics building (whose head, Dr. David McConnell, is Monsanto's chief scientific advocate in Ireland). As they turned the corner to begin work on the front of the building, Éanna Dowling was apprehended by security. The other three activists escaped.
Éanna spent the rest of the night being cross-examined by the Gardaí, who asked him several times to name the other environmentalists. "My line," says Éanna, "was 'I'm not gonna tell you - I'm prepared to take responsibility for whatever was done by the group'."
The following day, Éanna's case was adjourned in the District Court, and he was released on his own bail of #300, on condition that he wouldn't enter Trinity College until the case was over.
After a further adjournment, Éanna's case was finally heard on 17th April. His free legal aid barrister, Edward Leavy, pleaded guilty on Éanna's behalf. "And then," says Éanna, "he went into why I'd taken the action.
"He explained the kind of environmental work I'd been doing, and that the action was brought about out of concern for the health of Irish people and the Irish eco-system. And he went on about angel dust and growth-promoters, and the concern about the use of those kinds of chemicals in agriculture, and the concerns generally held over the way agriculture is going. GE is another extension of that, he said, and of the marketisation and trans nationalisation of agriculture.
"Initially the barrister said that protest can be seen as an inconvenience in our daily lives, but that over the course of history, it can be seen as the way that society changes and evolves and that this young man's action may eventually be seen to be an important statement against genetic engineering, which could prove to be a dangerous instrument brought into Ireland, which we don't really need."
SCOT FREE
It was an argument with which the judge seemed to be surprisingly sympathetic if his own off-the-cuff reference to human cloning is any indication.
"Because I'd entered a guilty plea," Éanna recalls, "they had to acknowledge that a crime was committed. If I'd pleaded not-guilty the judge could've dismissed the case outright. Instead they used the Probation Act to acknowledge that a crime had taken place, but the case was dismissed and there's nothing against my name on the files."
Dowling had been expecting a conviction, a record, and a big bill for damages. A well-known musician, independent environmentalist, co-editor of Catalyst magazine and recent employee of Earthwatch, he had already organised a series of fund-raising gigs to pay the damages, which were put at #1,400. Instead he walked free with no damages, no record and no fine.
"It's about as scot-free as you can get," he concludes. "And it's interesting because it's an acknowledgement by a judge that an individual can cause #1,400 worth of damages on an act of conscience.
"Now I don't for one minute think that if a rash of this kind of thing were to happen that everyone would get off in the same way. It might happen, but I doubt it. My gut feeling is that we got lucky. But it is significant, and if there was pressure coming from political quarters for the judiciary to be tough on eco-activists and eco-crime, then there could've been a fine imposed. But there wasn't."
An upsurge in non-violent direct eco-action is bound to result from the growing number of environmental issues which are currently the subject of controversy. The question is, how will the gardai and the courts handle it? In the light of the decision in the Éanna Dowling case, the latter may prove to be a lot more sympathetic to protestors than might have been assumed.
Watch this space. n