Mary Kelly's Re-Trial - Please apply blinkers, bury head.

    "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligation of obedience.Therefore [individuals] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
    Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal 1945-1946.

"His insistence that the invasion of Iraq cannot be mentioned in testimony is actually contrary to the Criminal Damage Act, which takes a person's state of mind into account when they perform the so-called damage. If they are deemed to have an honestly held belief they were acting in the interests of others, then they cannot be guilty of criminal damage. Therefore, Mary absolutely must be allowed to explain her motivations in order for there to be fair trial."

"Lawful excuse" defense not allowed by hostile Judge
Judge Carroll Moran ruled today in Ennis Circuit Court that the use of Shannon airport by the US military and the war in Iraq are "not relevant" to Mary's case. Court report

Court Watcher "...the judge denied almost every witness that the defense attempted to call.
Among the witnesses denied the stand were Mr. Denis Holliday a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Daniel Einsberger of Pentagon Papers fame, Dr. Horst Gunther who uncovered the United States use of depleted uranium in Iraq, Mr. Edward Horgan a former UN Peacekeeper, and Dr. Curtis Doebbler an international lawyers..."

Relevance of evidence in first trial. "He [Judge Moran] ignored the defence testimony, directing the jury not to allow feelings or issues of conscience to influence them in making their decision. This extraordinary instruction, when the whole function of a jury is to act as the conscience of society in matters of law, is perhaps an indication of how profoundly the prosecution\x92s agenda had been shown up by the strength, clarity and truth of the defence.

Out of Sight out of mindThere hasn't been an "immediacy clause" for the necessity defence Mary is using since 1997, when the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act amended the Criminal Damage Act (1991).

"In his ruling against Eoin Dubsky earlier this month in the same courthouse, J O'Donnell also leaped back in time to find him guilty because his defence under Section 6.3.c of the Criminal Damage Act ("Lawful excuse") wouldn't hold cause Iraq is so far away."

Question of the trial? Whats more dangerous knives, bombs or policy?
Judge Carroll Moran cautioned Ms Kelly on sticking to relevant issues in her defence, he told her, that the defence of lawful excuse refers only to an action taken to prevent a threat to a person, their property, or other persons, but only when that threat was of an immediate nature.

He gave the example of damaging the knife of a potential attacker, brandishing such an implement and went on to inform her, that the war in Iraq and the presence of a US plane did not impose an immediate threat to her or other persons when she damaged the U.S.A.F. navy plane

(from june 2003 court report) "The sage-like Ramsey Clarke (former U.S. Attorney General and longtime peace campaigner) testified for 30 minutes about the adverse effects of U.S. foreign policy, stating facts and figures about the effects of long-term low-intensity conflict in Iraq since 1991. He expressed deep concern about the sanctions, with at least 585,000 young children dead as a direct result of them. He also compared Mary\x92s action to somebody removing the bullets from a gun that would otherwise be used to kill someone. The prosecuting counsel strenuously questioned the relevance of Clarke\x92s testimony, and asked him the following question: \x93If someone broke into your house and did 1.5 million euros worth of damage, how would you feel?\x94 Clarke replied that if his house was capable of complicity in the murder of innocents, he\x92d be actively offering invitations to people to come and damage it. Clarke was asked the question several times (apparently the prosecutor felt he hadn\x92t answered it), and gave the same reply each time. I am sure many bizarre questions are asked in courtrooms, but this one strikes me as similar to asking Rosa Parks \x93If someone sat in your usual seat in the bus, how would you feel?\x94 Removal of context, universalizing of the particular, seems to be a tool used by empire time and again. And, because we all know that the master\x92s tools will never dismantle the master\x92s house (to borrow from Audre Lorde), all that a defence can do is to continually push the focus back to the context in which an action occurs."

June 2003: Hung jury doesn't satisfy state.
"Despite being effectively told to ignore their own human consciences, the jury couldn\x92t convict Mary Kelly for her efforts to undercut the U.S. war machine." Statements and Audio interview with Mary Kelly after initial trial.

Review of previous trials on Mary Kellys Website - Trial 1 June 03 - Trial 2 June 04 - Trial 3 October 04

-- PaulCummins - 27 Oct 2004
Topic revision: r3 - 28 Oct 2004, PaulCummins
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback