The Gardaí were once again the source of controversy in Ireland this week. This time allegations of political policing are to the forefront. First, we had the acquittal of those accused of the false imprisonment of Joan Burton and her associate at a 2014 anti-water charges protest in Jobstown and the subsequent calls for an investigation into allegations of a Gardaí conspiracy to damage the anti-water charges movement. This appears to be the latest in a long line of examples of Garda policing the movement with a clear political agenda. We also had blogger Catherine Kelly stopped at Dublin airport and officially cautioned by Gardaí about her tweeting and blogging about Government Minister Regina Doherty. Both instances highlight a worrying trend of political policing by the Gardaí in Ireland.

We can define political policing as policing that is conducted with political goals in mind. As the police force are an arm of the state, usually these political goals are in step with the ruling party or with the elite of society although we can point to examples of political policing where this has not been the case (for example, in Greece where there has been reportedly strong support within the police for the far-right Golden Dawn party). Political policing involves a deviance from legal or operational norms, with political considerations being dominant over proper and established legal practice. In short, political policing is policing which has as one of its main aims a political outcome or is motivated by political biases within the police force. Political policing doesn’t necessarily mean that the police are directed by political leaders but rather that the police are making decisions and acting with political considerations, usually with the interests of the establishment in mind.

Political policing can, amongst other tactics, involve harassment of political activists, refusal to investigate complaints made against authorities or the elite, prosecution of political leaders or activists and physical violence against protestors. If police responses to political activity differ depending on the political motivations of such activity, we can argue that political policing has taken place. For example, in the case of Catherine Kelly’s internet activity, would the Gardaí have reacted differently if the blog post and tweets had not been about a member of the Government? Would she have been stopped at Dublin airport and cautioned had the post made similar allegations against a politician who was not in power? Personally, I doubt it and believe that it’s likely that the Gardaí, having received a complaint from Regina Doherty, felt bound to act upon it given the position of the person making the complaint. If this is true, then this a clear case of political policing. It’s worth noting that the Irish times reported that “Garda sources said the decision to issue a caution in such a fashion was highly unusual” and that “normally Gardaí would deal with the matter over the phone or make arrangements to meet by appointment.

In the case of the Jobstown trial we can point to several factors that make this a case of political policing. Firstly, the selection of the charges of kidnapping for what was in essence a sit-down protest (albeit a particularly angry one) could be politically motivated. I find it highly unlikely that If the Irish Farmers Association had staged a sit-down protest and prevented the Minister of Agriculture from leaving for a couple of hours, charges of kidnapping would be brought. The use of dawn raids to arrest those accused seemed disproportionate and we should note that when bankers or other white-collar criminals face charges they are merely requested to attend the police station to be presented with charges, rather than having their door kicked in at 6am in the morning. Gardaí testimony during the trial also seemed to indicate political motivations were present.

If the above two examples do indeed point to political policing, they are certainly not the first time in recent years that such Garda behaviour has been a problem. The Shell2Sea campaign, for example, contained numerous instances of the Gardaí operating outside of normal guidelines and showing clear bias in favour of Shell and the Government, at the expense of the local community and activists. This report contains numerous instances of Gardaí biases in favour of Shell such as ignoring legal complaints by protestors and refusals to meet with the solicitors of residents but what stands out in the report for me was that the Gardaí had an explicit strategy of non-arrest whereby they did not “want to facilitate anybody down the route to martyrdom.” This clear case of politically motivated Garda tactics had the effect of leaving Gardaí on the ground with the only remaining strategy of violence and Gardaí were indeed found to have used disproportionate force on the anti-Shell activists.

This, of course, is not the only case of Garda violence against protestors. Readers in Donegal might remember the 1998 phone mast riot in the tiny village of Kerrykeel. Gardaí in riot gear, having cordoned off the village, confronted up to 70 people protesting the installation of an Esat mobile phone mast on the Garda station in the village of Kerrykeel. Locals allege that Gardaí used unnecessary force against the protestors and a county councillor, Ian McGarvey, was hospitalised with minor injuries. Five men were arrested and later released without charge. The dispute about the mast was later resolved but the Garda violence on the day can be seen as an attempt to solve a political issue through police violence.

More notoriously, in 2002 a “Reclaim the Streets” demonstration was met with massive Garda violence with Gardaí reportedly removing badge numbers from their uniforms before severely beating numerous protestors, with several seriously injured. Assault charges were brought against some Gardaí but the only case that went to trial resulted in acquittal. The Garda response has been described as “basically a case of the Gardaí ‘putting manners’ on those it believed had broken the unwritten rules about what was acceptable protest behaviour” (https://www.wsm.ie/c/political-policing-republic-ireland). If the “Reclaim the Streets” protest had not have been a far-left anti-globalisation protest would the Gardaí have used such obscene violence?

Violence against political activists is not the only type of political policing we can identify. Extensive leaking to the press has been undertaken by Gardaí, often with a clear political motivation. One such example is when TD Clare Daly was breathalysed by Gardaí, handcuffed and brought to a Garda station for questioning. Within hours, Gardaí had leaked to the media that Daly had been arrested for drink driving (she was in fact not over the legal alcohol limit). At the time, Daly had been posing some very awkward questions in relation to questionable Garda activity.

Another example of non-violent political policing came in 2015 when Gardaí denied a permit for fundraising to the Anti-Austerity Alliance (now called Solidarity) in Dublin on the grounds that money collected would be used to encourage lawbreaking (a justification presumably related to the anti-water charges movement). Indeed, the anti-water charges movement have consistently faced political policing with the most sinister case being Operation Mizen; whereby water activists (including elected representatives) were placed under Garda surveillance, with allegations that prominent activists and politicians had their phones illegally tapped.

Why do instances such as these occur? How can a society which is meant to have clear separation between the police and the political establishment, and where the police are meant to be impartial in political matters, have so many instances of police interference in politics? In addressing this question, the first thing to point out is that not everybody agrees that political policing takes place. Critics of the notion of political policing point out that there is a clear separation between the Gardaí and political authority. For example, Michael McDowell, former Justice Minister, when questioned whether there was a political motivation to the Gardaí actions over Jobstown, replied “that’s not the way the system works” before going on to add that “no politician has any input into how these things are done”.

This, however, is not strictly true. The head of the Gardaí, the Garda Commissioner, is accountable to the Minister of Justice and can only be removed from office by the Cabinet. So this idea of a clear separation is a nonsense. The government can interfere in policing in different ways; for example, by approving or rejecting policing plans or by using its power to prevent the Garda Ombudsman from carrying out an investigation (as happened with the Shell2Sea protests). The experience of former Commissioner Callinan amply demonstrates what happens when Garda Commissioners displease their political masters. It is impossible to ascertain to what extent Ministers instruct the Gardaí but even if direct orders are not made, it is difficult to believe that subtle instructions are not given to the Gardaí to act in certain ways; possibly through back channels. The example of former Minister Alan Shatter publicly revealing Mick Wallace’s driving infringements live on radio perhaps demonstrates the non-formal communication that can take place between the Gardaí and the Government. In addition to direct interference, there is also scope for indirect influence by the Government over the Gardaí. Allocation of budgets and appointments to senior positions within the Gardaí are both carried out by the government and there is thus motivation for the Garda hierarchy to carry out its operations in a way the Government finds pleasing.

There are more subtle reasons why the Gardaí are inclined towards political policing and that is the biases within the Gardaí. I alluded to this earlier when I hypothetically questioned whether the Gardaí would treat a farmers protest differently to an anti-water charges protest, all other things being equal. Police culture, it has been argued, is inherently conservative. It is logical to assume that respect for authority and belief that the societal status quo is not problematic goes hand in hand with wanting to join an organisation that represents authority and upholds the status quo. Challenges to the status quo and to political authority can be seen, by extension, as challenges to the police and the Gardaí act accordingly. The violence in Kerrykeel was the perfect example of Gardaí responding to direct challenge, as the phone mast in question was to be erected on the Garda station, pitting protestors directly against the Gardaí on what was essentially a political matter.

There is arguably an anti-left bias within Garda leadership (not surprising since Commissioners have been appointed by successive right-wing governments). An example of how this bias is maintained was when an applicant for deputy Commissioner told of how he was asked about “left wing political extremism” in his job interview. This was perhaps an attempt to ascertain the mans political beliefs with a view to determining his suitability for the role. It has also been argued that there is an inherent bias against the working class within the rank and file membership of the Gardaí. A 2003 report carried out by the Institute of Criminology in UCD for the National Crime Council pointed out that Garda actions in working class areas were much more hostile and aggressive than those in more middle-class areas.

This class bias has been used to argue against the notion that there was a Garda conspiracy (and by extension, political policing) in relation to the Jobstown trial, notably by Irish times columnist Fintan O’Toole who asserted that:

“It is ridiculous to suggest that the prosecution of the Jobstown protesters was a political conspiracy. There is a much more obvious explanation for why people in Jobstown would be subjected to dawn raids on their homes, handcuffed and hit with ludicrously over-the-top criminal charges carrying penalties up to life imprisonment. It’s social class”

But it is illogical to believe that Gardaí biases against the working class could not go hand in hand with the Gardaí attempting a conspiracy to damage a political movement of the working class, particularly when the Gardaí have such a long history of biased political policing. So, was there some sort of conspiracy to damage the anti-water charges movement? There is enough evidence to believe that there was. Firstly, there was a general trend of Gardaí at the trial watering down the more damning aspects of their statements given to the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), presumably because they had been made aware of the existence of video evidence which contradicted their statements. For example, a Garda driver had given a statement implying that one of the accused, TD Paul Murphy, had been the organiser of the protest since he was “directing people where to stand”. In court, he changed his testimony to state that Murphy was directing people “by gestures and body language” only. Both versions were contradicted by video evidence. Ultimately, these statements given to the DPP formed the basis to proceed to trial. Perhaps the biggest indication of something untoward about the trial was that three Gardaí (an inspector, a sergeant and a superintendent) claimed in court that Murphy had asked the crowd “will we keep her [Joan Burton] here all night?” Again, video evidence contradicted this and Murphy had in fact been advocating for the car in which the two women were travelling be allowed to leave. Is it a coincidence that three Gardaí all had the same false memory? Or is it more likely that this was false testimony designed to incriminate Paul Murphy?

In addition to dubious Garda testimony, there have been questions raised about the conduct of the investigation. There are indications that Gardaí did not fulfil their legal requirement to seek out evidence that the accused may have been innocent. It is alleged that Gardaí neglected to interview people at the protest (i.e. witnesses) and, incredibly, there is the suggestion that some of the video evidence used to contradict Garda accounts had been available to watch on YouTube. If this is the case, it is highly suspicious that over 2.5 million euro in public funds was spent on a case by the DPP (not to mention hundreds of hours spent by the Gardaí compiling the case) which had it been properly investigated, would have revealed that the accused were innocent of the charge of “false imprisonment”.

All of this adds to the conclusion that there was at some level a conspiracy by the Gardaí to have the case brought to trial. If this is so then the only conceivable reasoning behind such a conspiracy is that there was a political motivation. In other words, the Jobstown trial was a clear and sinister (and illegal) case of political policing.

If we accept this as a case of political policing and as a conspiracy then two questions remain. How high up did this conspiracy go? And what were the exact political motivations behind the conspiracy? The answer to the first question is likely one we will never know. Perhaps the extent of the conspiracy was collusion between several Gardaí (for example, the three Gardaí who perjured themselves) to incriminate the accused. Maybe senior politicians intimated to the Garda hierarchy that they believed the Jobstown protests warranted serious charges and the Gardaí followed these unofficial implied orders. Regardless, even if there is a full public inquiry it’s not like there is going to be a paper trail of evidence pointing to the Minister of Justice or the Garda Commissioner. Similarly, anyone involved in a conspiracy would likely be incriminating themselves if they ever came forward with evidence. It is worth noting though, that talk of “false imprisonment” was being bandied about by politicians and the media before charges were ever brought.

What remains then is the second question; what were the aims of the conspiracy? This, of course, will also remain forever unknown so we are left with speculation. There are several possibilities; the first is that the goal was to have the defendants imprisoned to discourage further similar protests. This seems unlikely; Paul Murphy’s proverbial megaphone would be infinitely amplified had he become a political prisoner. Furthermore, if incarceration was the aim then surely more credible criminal charges would have been brought; charges of “false imprisonment” always seemed likely to result in acquittal. Another possibility is that there was no conspiracy as such; only a bit of collusion between a handful of idiot Gardaí. In this analysis, some sort of anti-working-class bias combined with a desire to fulfil the perceived wishes of their seniors (both Gardaí and political) may have led to a misguided attempt to falsely incriminate the accused.

My own view is that Gardaí acted on implicit or explicit instructions from their political masters to charge the accused with “false imprisonment” and then colluded to paint a false picture of the accused as having falsely imprisoned Joan Burton and her associate. The charges of “false imprisonment” were chosen as they could be used as sensationalist criminal charges that would increase media coverage of other elements of the protest that could be painted in a negative light but which were not illegal. Pure speculation here, but I believe the intended effect was never to secure a conviction but was to delegitimise protest and to taint the far-left as being potentially criminal and as representative of an irrational mob.

The media has certainly played into all of this. In print and on the airwaves, the coverage of the trial has made constant reference to the nasty insults shouted at Burton and this has had the overall effect of painting the protest as an angry mob, rather than a protest with valid political goals. If you listened to any of the coverage of the acquittal on RTE Radio One, for example, you would have heard constant reference to some of the protestors verbal abuse of Joan Burton, something which was completely unrelated to the trial. Any time anyone who was part of the anti-water charges movement were on the air they were persistently asked about such abuse and if they condoned it. This is a conspiracy which probably involved no direct or official orders but one which had unwitting media participants who predictably played their role of towing the establishment line.

Whether we can refer to the Jobstown trial as a conspiracy or not to some extent misses the wider danger of a police force which deals with public protest and dissent with a consistent political bias and which polices working class communities in a fundamentally discriminatory way. If there was a conspiracy directed from the higher echelons of “the establishment”, it could only have happened due to the failings of a police force which over the years has engaged in numerous instances of political policing. How can this problem be tackled? Not very easily—we are dealing with a force which has long played a specific role in the maintenance of the established order and one which has its own deeply embedded anti-left-wing and anti-working-class biases.