No doubt everyone got a good laugh out of the escapades of John Clarke and Sinead Duffy, who were arrested in flagrante semi-delicto in Croke Park by some heroic gardaí. Their intention was to have sex on the pitch; and the nation, as one, fell about hysterically.
We should all rejoice that crime in north central Dublin is now of such minuscule proportions that these two hardened desperadoes could be brought to book. Equally, we should rejoice that the new computer system PULSE, which gardaí have been arguing is so difficult to work that it is hindering their war against lawlessness, proved no impediment in tackling this two-person crime wave.
Moreover, let us celebrate the fact that these villains saved the court's time by pleading guilty to the charge of trespassing with intent. In north central Dublin all else may go uncorrected; but trespass - ah yes, a mark of true criminal depravity.
The gardaí even accepted in court that the two had entered the ground with no criminal intent, and they had apologised. Their counsel quoted George Bush: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." The judge said he was impressed that both the accused had pleaded guilty, and that both were involved in community work. Sinead, he noted, worked with street children in Nairobi. He then remanded them on bail to December 11th, for payment of €500 each to charity.
To which I can only say: Five hundred euros? Jesus Mary and Joseph! A total fine of €1,000 for the offence of trespass on a football ground, but with the sole intent of having sexual intercourse? Nobody was hurt, nor was there any intention to hurt. Nothing was stolen, no was there any intention to steal. Nothing was damaged, nor was there any intention to damage.
Public order offences
Let's look at it another way. Thomas Kador, 24, was recently found guilty of taking a garda's radio and committing two public order offences during a riot. He pleaded not guilty to the charges, as is his right; but the accepted usage is that an unsuccessful plea of not guilty leads to a heavier penalty than a guilty one.
Thomas's offences occurred during an anti-globalisation demonstration that had turned ugly. He was fined €300 for the larceny of the garda radio, and a further €200 on each of two public order offences: a total of €800.
This actually seems quite a severe punishment. What would he have got had he pleaded guilty? The young man insisted that he was not guilty, but of course I accept the judge's conclusions. However, Thomas has this in common with the Croke Park Two: he works with the poor - he runs a night shelter for the homeless - and he is a student. For such a palpably decent man with, one may presume, a small income, for a moment's indiscretion a fine of €800 seems a truckload of money.
Yet it's still smaller than the joint fine the Croke Park Two collected. Consider, moreover, the individual charges. For the crime of stealing a radio from an embattled garda in the course of a riot, Thomas was fined €300. But merely for trespassing on Croke Park, John Clarke and Sinead Duffy were effectively fined €500, each.
Holy ground
So what makes their offence so much more heinous? Was it because they trespassed on the holy ground of Croke Park? Or was it because, by their own admission, they wanted to have sexual intercourse on the pitch? And why wouldn't they, on that sward, untouched throughout its history as yet by bare female bottom?
Thousands of people probably had sexual intercourse that night in Dublin. It is, I am told, quite a common activity, even a pleasurable one, frequently not unrelated to the production of babies. Many scientists maintain that it is the commonest cause of human reproduction, and that activity on those lines very probably led to our mothers getting pregnant, even judges' mothers. Who can say: maybe judges in their time have also engaged in this sort of activity, though not, we hope, in Croke Park.
So, was the reason for the extravagantly high "fine" - in fact, an involuntary contribution to charity - related to the fact that the couple intended to have sex? Would trespassers who merely wanted to admire the stands at midnight have been fined E500 each? Personally, I think we should be told. If there's a tariff upon sexual activity in football grounds, one wants to know.
In passing we might note that Fingal County Council was recently fined €750 for polluting the Tolka River so badly that all animal life for six miles was exterminated. So if you added the larceny of one garda radio during a riot and the totally lethal contamination of miles of river, the fines just manage to exceed the penalty inflicted on two young people looking for somewhere to have sex.
Crime figures
Or, put it another way. For seeking somewhere private to do something that is entirely natural, two students were clobbered with a total fine that is over 10 times the tariff for speeding. So. Where are we? Iran? At least the Garda's stunning success against John and Sinead will boost the annual crime clear-up figures for north central Dublin in the Garda Commissioner's annual report, which, astonishingly, hasn't yet made it onto the Booker short-list: and thus may everyone in Dublin 1 and 7 finally sleep safely in their beds.
By God, this Republic is a fine thing.