"Rossport 5" released

oscarBravo

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0930/mayo.html

...[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]one of the five men, Brendan Philbin, said... [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]that the protest had been worth it and that they would do it all again.

Not exactly contrite.
[/font]

I dont know what it is they have to be contrite about to be frank.

Lawyers for Shell had asked that the temporary injunction against the men be lifted, as it is now not possible to carry out any work on the site because of a safety review.

So they didnt have to purge their contempt because shell asked for the injunction to be lifted?

Could someone tell me what technicality of law is this? Ie that Shell have the power to nullify the contempt ?
Are/Were Shells powers in this regard similar to the catholic churches plenary indulgences ?

This leads me back to what I was saying way back when the first thread was going on this subject and that is, it seemed to me to be unneccessary to have them in jail longer than necessary.

It's cost the state money and Shell it can be argued cost the state money by not actioning todays decision sooner.
From the five mens POV, the contempt charge is of little concern to them compared to their concerns on the pipeline and TBH I have to hand it to them for their committment to their cause.They've no personal or monetary gain out of prison(unless you count the value of their houses if the pipe is stopped)

Anyway
Enough said(by me anyway)

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

I dont know what it is they have to be contrite about to be frank.

Contempt of court.

Earthman wrote:

So they didnt have to purge their contempt because shell asked for the injunction to be lifted?

Could someone tell me what technicality of law is this? Ie that Shell have the power to nullify the contempt ?
Are/Were Shells powers in this regard similar to the catholic churches plenary indulgences ?

As I understand it, they're still guilty of contempt. The reason they're out of jail is that the court doesn't have to exercise its ultimate sanction to prevent them breaching one of its injunctions, as that injunction has been lifted. They are not out of the woods on the contempt charge.

Earthman wrote:

This leads me back to what I was saying way back when the first thread was going on this subject and that is, it seemed to me to be unneccessary to have them in jail longer than necessary.

...and now that the court no longer has to protect its injunction, they have been released.

Earthman wrote:

It's cost the state money and Shell it can be argued cost the state money by not actioning todays decision sooner.

It can equally be argued that the five cost the state money by refusing to purge their contempt.

DublinWriter

oscarBravo wrote:

Not exactly contrite.
[/size][/font]

I think you're missing the point.

They didn't purge their contempt and still refuse to do so. As far as I know, they were released on a legal technicality that was marked by the differences in definition between 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt'.

As one can't get a punitive sentence in this country from a civil legal matter, and doubt was raised whether this was civil or criminal contempt, they were released.

I haven’t read the judge’s entire ruling, but in the excerpts that I heard, he didn't seem too happy, but had to concede to the argument.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

Contempt of court.

They don't have to be contrite about that when they are willing to take the punishment for it.

As I understand it, they're still guilty of contempt. The reason they're out of jail is that the court doesn't have to exercise its ultimate sanction to prevent them breaching one of its injunctions, as that injunction has been lifted. They are not out of the woods on the contempt charge. ...and now that the court no longer has to protect its injunction, they have been released. It can equally be argued that the five cost the state money by refusing to purge their contempt.

No it can't
The state didn't ask for the injunction Shell did.
The state didn't dilly dally in asking for the injunction to be lifted Shell did.
They could have negotiated which is what they will be doing now anyway via a mediator.

As for the men, they have their principals and are on record as saying they will do this again if necessary ie more prison and more cost for the state.
The only possible way out of that is negotiation and the only body who has the power to move on that is shell assuming the men don't abandon their cause(they're on record as saying they wont)

Ajnag

Hmm why make issue of contempt for court when compulsory purchase orders on behalf of a private company are contempt for the constitution?

Im not arguing that it is right, but if your to take issue with contemp for law and the court then shouldnt it be an issue of holding everyone equally responsible?

is_that_so

The injunction has been lifted but as they showed contempt for the court they will have to return. Principled as they are they should at least have acknowledged that. IMO they should not have cocked a snook at the legal system because it suited them. If it had been them serving the injunction there would have been much jumping up and down and shouting about rights of the little man.

As regards the issue itself, not all things should be resolved through the "mejia". Let them off into a room together and hammer it all out.

Victor

Ajnag wrote:

Hmm why make issue of contempt for court when compulsory purchase orders on behalf of a private company are contempt for the constitution?

Is it really contempt for the constitution? The constitution allow abrogation of private property right if it is for the benefit of the community. Providing an alternative energy source is for the benefit of the community.

Thomond Pk

The main CPO legislation is inherited it was drawn up in 1919 and its primary focus was to facilitate railways, Harbours and roads. It was designed to facilitate the private sector develop projects as they could not rely on the power of a government being a private entity.

From what I understand the entire CPO process was bungled badly with huge variations in the level of offer; some of the farmers involved were offered 50p a square metre for their land initially. This is fundamentally flawed as the farmer must take the acquiring body to arbitration and is fully liable for costs if they lose; this would have cost them upwards of 10,000 pounds at the time or a multiple of the price they would receive.

The entire Rossport situation has been an appawling vista of Shell and their solicitors McCann Fitzgerald bullying 5 small farmers with their financial muscle. I have great admiration for the Rossport community thay have stood and faced Shell down. The management of Shell Ireland should be removed for squandering over 100m of shareholders funds from Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

DublinWriter

DublinWriter wrote:

As one can't get a punitive sentence in this country from a civil legal matter, and doubt was raised whether this was civil or criminal contempt, they were released.

Not sure about that, in the sense that failing to discharge a debt and subsequent instalment order may lead to a committal. Technically the committal is for breach of a court order ie. the instalment, but it still means that you end up in jail arising out of a civil matter.

DublinWriter

Deleted User wrote:

Not sure about that, in the sense that failing to discharge a debt and subsequent instalment order may lead to a committal. Technically the committal is for breach of a court order ie. the instalment, but it still means that you end up in jail arising out of a civil matter.

I think Debtor's Prisons were eliminated at the turn of the century?

Normally, it goes over to the county Sherrif to cease goods of the value of the debt from the Debtor in the situtation you mentioned.

DublinWriter

DublinWriter wrote:

I think Debtor's Prisons were eliminated at the turn of the century?

Normally, it goes over to the county Sherrif to cease goods of the value of the debt from the Debtor in the situtation you mentioned.

Huh? People go to jail for failure to pay civil debts every week in Ireland.

If the Sheriff can't seize anything, which is standard enough, usually the Creditor goes back to Court for an Instalment Order, and the Debtor is asked to file a Statement of Means. And if/when the Instalment Order is made and ignored, the Creditor can go back to Court for a Committal Order. In most cases, when the Gardai come knocking, the Debtor will still be given time to get the money, but if he fails then he will go to jail. Unlike committal for a fine, imprisonment does not discharge the debt, so the Debtor comes out after his time - usually a few days - and the amount remains outstanding.

Pal

The Irish Independent headlined with the word Heroes on Saturday.

personally I find it offensive to describe anybody who has contempt for the courts as Heroes

Criminals would be more appropriate.