A jury in the trial of two US army veterans accused of trespass and criminal damage at Shannon Airport has been urged to “be the lamp that shows freedom lives” and acquit them both.
The jury in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial of Ken Mayers (85) and Tarak Kauff (80) started its deliberations shortly after midday on Friday.
Mr Mayers, of Monte Alte Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico and Mr Kauff, of Arnold Drive, Woodstock, New York have pleaded not guilty to trespass, criminal damage and interfering with the operation, safety or management of Shannon Airport on March 17th, 2019.
The trial has heard both men served in the United States military before becoming anti-war activists in the 1960s. They are members of a US-based group called Veterans for Peace.
In their evidence to the trial this week, both defendants acknowledged cutting a hole in the fence and walking onto the airport. They said they did so to protest against the US' military use of Shannon as a stop-over en route to and from areas such as the Middle East, where the military is involved.
In his closing speech to the jury on Friday, Tony McGillicuddy BL, prosecuting, acknowledged the jury might have sympathy for the two defendants.
“They are sincere and honourable persons,” he said. “That can't be disputed and is not disputed.”
'Courteous'
He recalled the evidence of every airport official and garda in the trial who described “how respectful and courteous they were”.
However, Mr McGillicuddy said the jury must put sympathy aside and have regard to the law in the case.
In relation to the criminal damage counts, the jury was told it must consider whether, in damaging the fence, the accused men had an honestly held belief that their actions were justified in order to protect other persons.
Mr McGillicuddy said the prosecution case was that the men did not have any such lawful excuse. He said there was no evidence there were any munitions or arms onboard the plane, adding there was no evidence in relation to there being a need to protect any persons.
“They were there for education purposes and the education of law enforcement personnel,” Mr McGillicuddy said. He added they were “making a political statement, drawing attention to matters, highlighting matters”.
“That may be very understandable, but it is not a lawful excuse under the Criminal Damage Act,” he said.
In relation to the charge of interfering with the operation, safety and management of an airport, Mr McGillicuddy submitted that the men's presence on the taxiway at Shannon Airport caused the closure of the airport.
In relation to the charge of trespassing with intent to cause damage or interfere with property, the prosecution said the men had admitted to entering the airport grounds and had told officials that they were there to inspect a plane.
“There is no evidence there was anything illegal in Shannon Airport on that date,” Mr McGillicuddy said.
He told the jury that any “qualms, claims, contentions, worries or concerns” should have been reported to the authorities in the proper way. He urged the jury to return guilty verdicts on all six counts.
'Political posturing'
Michael Hourigan BL, defending Mr Mayers, told the jury that the issue was the lawfulness of the actions of the two men and the honest and reasonable beliefs that they held.
He said the prosecution's description of the men as sincere and honourable was “a tacit concession that what they tell you they believe, is a sincere and honestly-held position on their part”.
This was not some kind of “political posturing”, but an honestly held belief that the actions they did on the day could save lives, the jury was told.
Mr Mayers told the jury of “an ethical and moral obligation he felt, on the basis of all he had experienced and all that he knew,” Mr Hourigan said.
In relation to the prosecution assertion that there were no arms on board the plane that day, Mr Huorigan noted that no airport official inspected the plane, nor was there a practice of inspecting US military planes at Shannon Airport.
“You do not have to determine whether or not there were arms on that plane or a breach of Irish neutrality,” Mr Hourigan said. “It is whether these sincere and honourable men are being sincere and honourable when they tell you: 'This is what I believe, and this is what I did'.”
Mr Hourigan submitted there was a lot more to constitutional democracy than the letter of the law.
“The jury is the lamp that shows that freedom lives,” he said, quoting an old legal saying. “Be the lamp and show that freedom lives. The only way you can do that is by delivering verdicts of not guilty.”
In her closing speech, Carol Doherty BL, defending Mr Kauff, said she adopted everything Mr Hourigan had submitted.
She told the jury “the best thing about the law in Ireland” is that there is a built-in mechanism to ensure that in the right circumstances, a person cannot be convicted of criminal damage, provided they can show they honestly believed their actions were lawful.
She recalled her client's evidence to the jury that he believed the plane at Shannon was a “US war machine” en route to war-torn Yemen.
In relation to the charge of interfering with the operation of the airport, Ms Doherty said the airfield was closed to ensure no one else was on the airfield, not because her client was walking along a taxiway.
She said no airlines lost any money as a result of the airport closure and delays were minimal.
In relation to the allegation the men intended to carry out criminal damage, Ms Doherty noted that when he was met by the airport officer, Mr Kauff had a phone, his wallet and a folded-up banner on his person and nothing else.
Ms Doherty added Mr Kauff has dedicated his life to peaceful protest.
“People who go against the great can make a difference,” she said. “It's reasonable to assume Mr Kauff and Mr Mayers might have made a difference. Hope is a powerful thing. The fact that hope wasn't realised on this occasion doesn't mean this action wasn't justified.”
The trial continues before Judge Patricia Ryan.
