Court of Criminal Appeal in Eire
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838504900109 |
| Published date | 01 February 1985 |
| Date | 01 February 1985 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
COURT
OF
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
IN
EIRE
OBSTRUCfION
OF
GOVERNMENT
The People v. Kehoe
Section 7(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 (the terms
of which may commend themselves to those who have witnessed the
scenes of violence in England recently both on the industrial and on
the political front) enacts that:
"Every
person who prevents or
obstructs, or attempts or is concerned in an attempt to prevent or
obstruct, by force of arms or
other
violent means or by any form of
intimidation, the carrying on of the government of the State or any
branch (whether legislative, judicial or executive) of the govern-
ment of the State or the execution or performance by any member
of the legislature, the judiciary
or
the executive or by any officer or
employee (whether civil (including police) or military) of the State
of any of his functions, powers or duties shall be guilty of a felony"
and
thepenalty
may be 20 years' imprisonment.
The
event out of which the applicant for leave to appeal in The
People v. Kehoe [1983]
I.R.
136 was charged with "obstruction of
government" contrary to the above provisions was a "demonstra-
tion" by a crowd which had marched on the British Embassy in
Dublin to complain about conditions in the prisons in Northern
Ireland. Though many were no
doubt
concerned merely to exercise
their right to express their opinions in a peaceful manner, others
came
armed
with poles, pick-axe handles, sticks, stones and even an
ancient pike. The police erected a steel barricade, to prevent the
crowd from entering the Embassy (although leaders were allowed
in, to deliver a
"protest").
The
police came under
"a
sustained and
brutal
attack"
and several were injured, as attempts were made to
move the barrier.
The
applicant was identified as a man who was
carrying a six or seven foot pole, with which he aimed blows at the
police. However, as it could not be established thatany of the actual
injuries received by the police were inflicted by the applicant, it was
argued that, in view of the dangers inherent in identification
50
To continue reading
Request your trial