There has been much speculation about the reasons for the unanimous acquittal of those tried for false imprisonment in Jobstown, but little attention given to the context in which it took place.
The jury was asked to consider evidence for and against the proposition that the six accused had falsely imprisoned former tánaiste Joan Burton and her assistant, Karen O'Connell.
While the two women gave evidence of their ordeal and its impact on them, the bulk of the evidence on which this accusation was based was that of members of the Garda Síochána, who sought to convince the jury that the men had, individually and collectively, been responsible for detaining the women and preventing them from leaving the vicinity.
Other evidence came in the form of camera-phone and video recordings of the incident, some of which contradicted the evidence of the gardaí. In acquitting the six men, the jury rejected the evidence presented by the gardaí.
The context in which the trial took place included not only the sustained campaign in many working-class communities against water charges, of which the demonstration was a part, but also the recent litany of scandals within the Garda which has severely dented the credibility of the force.
Morris tribunal
Scandals in the Garda are, unfortunately, nothing new. They include the widespread abuses in Donegal revealed by the Morris tribunal and the wrongful conviction of Frank Shortt for allowing drugs to be sold on his premise, later overturned on appeal and leading to substantial compensation, and a number of cases over many years in which the judge ruled the evidence of the gardaí could not be relied upon.
But none of this appeared to dent the faith juries had in the gardaí and their willingness to believe Garda evidence even when it appeared to contradict that of members of the public or indeed video evidence.
This was particularly well-illustrated by the cases arising out of the Reclaim the Streets demonstration in Dublin on May Day 2002, where a number of demonstrators were severely beaten by members of the Garda, with many of them seriously injured.
No demonstrators were charged with violence. Five gardaí were subsequently prosecuted for assault causing harm.
In the following trials, the juries were shown television and video footage of the demonstration and the Garda reaction, including the beating of unarmed demonstrators with batons. It included footage of one assault during which one of the gardaí charged accepted he had used excessive force.
Despite this, and graphic accounts of their injuries given by multiple victims, all five were acquitted by juries. One was convicted of the lesser charge of assault and received a suspended sentence.
Such an attitude on the part of juries reflected the widespread respect in which gardaí were held among the majority – though of course not all – of the population until recently. Successive surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction with the force, though this tended to reduce when those living in working-class communities were questioned.
Indeed, a 2003 report from the National Crime Council on public order revealed that the policing style in working-class suburbs was much more hostile and aggressive than that in more middle-class areas closer to the city centre.
This suggested that large swathes of the population were, in certain circumstances, seen as problematic by many members of the Garda, and the attitude was reciprocated. However, this mutual mistrust was not generalised.
Whistleblowers
Recent years have seen a shift in public attitudes towards the Garda and its leadership. The Garda whistleblowers controversy, which has cost the careers of a Garda commissioner and a minister for justice, rumbles on and its fallout is by no means over.
The issue initially highlighted – that penalty points were routinely not applied to those with the right connections in the force – is one that strikes a chord with every driver in the State.
That has been compounded by the revelation that the statistics relating to penalty points were wildly inaccurate. Since then, it has been revealed that other statistics, including those relating to homicides, are also unreliable.
More recently, revelations of questionable financial practices in Templemore over many years has led to further questioning of Garda senior management.
It is hardly surprising, then, that a jury, when faced with a conflict between evidence from members of the Garda and video evidence, would be reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to members of the gardaí, as they did in the Reclaim the Streets trial.
The implications of this do not end with the Jobstown trial. If Garda evidence is to be accepted by juries in future, it must not only be accurate and unbiased, and not conflict with video evidence, but the credibility of the gardaí themselves must be restored.
Carol Coulter is director of the Child Care Law Reporting Project and former legal affairs editor of The Irish Times. She writes here in a personal capacity