A judge has upheld a decision to deny an Anti-Austerity Alliance councillor a permit for house-to-house and street collections in Dublin after a senior garda said the money could be used to encourage illegal acts.
The Anti-Austerity Alliance is now considering a constitutional challenge to the decision, which TD Ruth Coppinger described as criminalising the party in the run-up to next year’s general election.
In July, Cllr Michael Murphy, a member of the Anti-Austerity Alliance, applied to Divisional Chief Supt Orla McPartlin of the Garda's Dublin Metropolitan Region for a permit to carry out a collection.
She refused his request because she believed money raised could be used to encourage, directly or indirectly, the commission of unlawful acts.
Raise funds
In an appeal against her decision, Dublin District Court had been told the party wanted to raise funds to campaign in the next general election.
The Anti-Austerity Alliance rejected the claims by Chief Supt McPartlin and argued she had refused to grant the permit to the party as a whole and not just to Cllr Murphy.
The challenge was brought by the Anti-Austerity Alliance, one of their members John Donnellan and Cllr Murphy against the high-ranking garda's decision, which they claimed prevents them from raising funds. They claimed their human rights were breached.
Judge Michael Coghlan said the evidence of Chief Supt McPartlin was fair and reasonable. He said the party had other means to raise funds and calling to people's doors was "nothing short of a coercion".
Public order incident
In evidence, given previously, Chief Supt McPartlin told Judge Coghlan that she was aware Cllr Murphy had been involved in a public order incident in Jobstown on November 15th last year.
She said there were also many protests against the installation of Irish Water meters in her division over the previous six to nine months.
She refused Cllr Murphy’s application for permission to have collections because she believed it would be used to engage in further protests.
She said several other people had been arrested at protests and she refused to grant the permit based on her opinion and information she had. It was her opinion that the proceeds could be used to encourage directly or indirectly the commission of unlawful acts.
In cross-examination with David Langwallner BL, for the appellants, she said there had been several public order incidents in her division which informed her opinion. She agreed she was aware Cllr Murphy was a member of the Anti-Austerity Alliance.
Not a blanket ban
When the appeal resumed on Friday, Peter Leonard BL, for Chief Supt McPartlin, submitted it was not a blanket ban on the party and any attempt to suggest such was wrong and completely inaccurate.
The chief superintendent gave her reasons in good faith for refusing this singular application by Cllr Murphy, Mr Leonard argued.
However, Mr Langwallner argued that the court did not have to accept Chief Supt McPartlin’s reasons.
He said that in a letter to Cllr Murphy explaining her reasons there was no indication this was a singular refusal.
In the letter, she said the refusal was a result of persons being arrested for public order offences, and some of them were Anti-Austerity Alliance personnel. She explained in the letter that she refused to allow the permit because she believed the collections would be used to facilitate protests sponsored by the Anti-Austerity Alliance, and Mr Langwallner argued this was “very generic”.
Anti-Austerity Alliance representative in Dublin South West, John Donnellan, told the court any money collected was for the election campaign and would not have been under Cllr Murphy’s sole control.
Single application
Judge Michael Coghlan noted the senior garda had stated in evidence that she made her decision in relation to a single application by Cllr Murphy, and not a general application by the Anti-Austerity Alliance. He rejected the appeal. He said he was satisfied Chief Supt McPartlin, having regard to her professional wisdom as a senior police officer, made a valid decision.
The judge refused a request by counsel for the alliance for the case to be referred to the High Court in a procedure known as the consultative case stated.
He said he would not order the alliance to pay costs because he considered the case of interest in terms of public debate.