Shannon Court Report - 22 Dec 05

national | crime and justice | news report Friday December 23, 2005 19:55 by U_NO .. The School of Pejorative Journalism

Mr. Cregan is dragged from the Court again for crime of speaking up in own defence.

At Shannon District Court (held in Ennis), Judge Mangan yesterday held the Constitution and the Rights of Citizens in utter contempt when he shat upon, and then pissed all over, both.

At the last hearing of this case, on 8th Dec 2005, Mr. Cregan was dragged out of court by Gardai on the orders of Judge Mangan - see link - http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73376

"Registrar..!!.. I want 3-ply Constitution in Court in future" screams an irate Mungo Jerry, "this cheap parchment is scratching my gusset!!"

Yesterday, 22nd December 2005, relatively few cases were dealt with in the morning, most of the time being taken up with the traditional “Christmas Sliming Session”, during which all court parasites attempt to outdo each other in efforts to be adopted as the Judge’s favourite suppository in the New Year.

The nauseating sycophants, mainly solicitors and cops of varying stripes, droned on and on with streams of verbal schmaltz, congratulating Judge Mangan on the wondrous quality of ‘justice’ he has presided over and dispensed, with their able collaboration, in his District Court during the whole year.

The increasingly self-satisfied Mangan, who beamed benignly as his happy family of lackeys really got down and licked boot, then generously bestowed a few expansive words in which, yet again, no (self)praise or mutual back-slapping was spared.

This public display of rank hypocrisy and disgusting dishonesty was naturally quite a test for the nerves of anyone actually interested in Justice and unfortunate enough to be present.

When the ordeal finally ended most of the parasites, utterly exhausted by their efforts, retired to the bar across the road to be re-hydrated, and Mr. Cregan’s case was called.

Mr. Cregan began by asserting his right to a fair hearing in the court, as laid down in Bunreacht Na hEireann and the law, and handed up his written legal argument and applications to the Court.

As soon as he began to do this he was brusquely overridden by Judge Mangan, who refused to let him speak further, swiftly fixing a new date for mention of the case and ordering, yet again, that Mr. Cregan be dragged outside by Gardai. This they immediately did.

Parting words from Mr. Cregan: “This is illegal! - It is on the record now, Judge Mangan, you have my applications in writing, but you are again denying me a hearing!”

Retort from the learned Inverter of The Constitution: “You know what you can do about that – take it to the High Court!”

------ the end, and just in time for a ham luncheon back at the mansion ------


The following written material was handed up by Mr. Cregan to District Court Judge Mangan:

“I, Conor Cregan, assert my right to a fair hearing in this court, as laid down in Bunreacht Na hEireann and the law, for example:

Article 38
1. No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law.

Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

[these articles having been held by Superior Courts to incorporate unenumerated rights and basic principles of justice – such as the ‘Right to a Fair Trial’, audi alterem partem, etc.]

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
1. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
2. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged has the following minimum rights:
...a) to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
...b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
...c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
...d) to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

I, Conor Cregan, say that on various occasions to date I have been denied my Constitutional and legal rights to a fair hearing and due process under law, or been discriminated against, by the following means employed by this Court:

1 my case is called in the morning but practically always ‘let stand’ until the end of the day for no good reason and without consultation with me.

2 in making any application or legal argument I can never get halfway through a sentence without being interrupted by Judge Mangan.

3 my case, in which I represent myself, is very often conflated with that of other defendants represented by a solicitor. Despite my protest against this practice, the result is that this solicitor appears, without instruction, to represent me.

4 my applications are interrupted by Judge Mangan shouting “case adjourned” or some similar dismissal, and then moving swiftly on to the next case.

5 under such circumstances I have been literally dragged from the Court by An Garda Siochana acting on the orders of Judge Mangan to “use all necessary force” to remove me, while I am still making my application to him (on 8th December 2005).

I protest formally against this behaviour by you, Judge Mangan, which taken together constitutes a deliberate breach of my rights.

I insist upon the full enjoyment of my rights and that you henceforth desist from such practices as described above, which undermine and endanger them.

I want you to recall your oath of office, Judge Mangan, as stated in Bunreacht Na hEireann at:

Article 34
5. 1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I, [insert your name here], do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."


And I ask that you act accordingly with this solemn oath and Bunreacht Na hEireann at:

Article 35
2. All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial
functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law.


In other words:

I want my case to be dealt with when first called, Judge Mangan, and an end to the habitual delays I have suffered, as I feel discriminated against by automatic dismissal to the end of the list. This is also very inconvenient for friends who accompany me to court, as they must then wait the whole day whereas a mention of my case could normally be dealt with in the morning.

I want a fair hearing, courteous treatment and due process under law – in particular, to be allowed to speak, make applications and legal argument without interruption or cross-examination from you, Judge Mangan.

I want you, Judge Mangan, to refrain from addressing other cases, representatives or defendants while my case is being dealt with, as this only brings confusion to the matter.

I want you, Judge Mangan, to properly entertain my applications and argument, hear me out and then give a reasoned response. You will find I am not abusing the Court or the procedures established for its functioning.

I do not want, as you, Judge Mangan, have forcefully suggested to me on several occassions, to go to great expense and inconvenience seeking relief in the High Court, as I feel sure that I am entitled by right to the full protection of the Constitution and the law in this District Court.

I refer you, Judge Mangan, to the ruling of The Supreme Court in:

David Whelan v. Judge Brian Kirby & DPP [2004] IESC 16 (1 March 2004)

In the consenting opinions of Keane C.J., Denham, Hardiman, Geoghegan & FennellyJJ., binding upon this Court:

“The court at the very least should have entertained and considered the application in the interests of ensuring that the defendants were not unfairly handicapped in their defence.”

“There is jurisdiction in the District Court to make any order that would be necessary for the fulfilment of the constitutional obligation of a fair trial and fair procedures.”


i.e. The court found that Judge Kirby breached the applicants’ fundamental constitutional rights by denying them a fair hearing, in refusing to entertain and properly consider their application.


Further, I refer you, Judge Mangan, to the ruling of The Supreme Court in:

DPP v.Gary Doyle [SC. 93 / 1993] [1994] 2 I.R. 286

In the consenting opinions of Finlay C.J., O'Flaherty, Egan, Blayney, Denham JJ., binding upon this Court:

“The District Court Judge has the duty of ensuring that justice, incorporating fundamental constitutional concepts of fair procedures, is delivered in court.”

“However, the applicant retains at all times his constitutional rights to fair procedures and if he requires, and it is in the interests of justice, that he be furnished with statements, or indeed other documents held by the prosecution, which will be evidence in his trial, then he is so entitled. It is a matter for the trial judge to determine in each case.”

Further, I refer you, Judge Mangan, to the ruling of The Court of Criminal Appeal in:

DPP v. Selliah Ramachchandran [CCA. 63 / 1999] [2000] 2 I.R.

In the opinions of Barrington, O’Neill and Finnegan JJ., binding upon this Court:

“Held by the Court of Criminal Appeals, in allowing the appeal and in quashing the conviction, 1, that where a criminal trial was proceeding and where an accused was in a position where he was totally incompetent to defend himself, as was the applicant, there was an even greater burden on a trial judge to ensure that the trial was in all respects above reproach.”

i.e. The court found that the burden to ensure a fair trial is upon the trial judge and in the case of a lay litigant this burden is to be more scrupulously observed than if the defendant was represented by counsel.


Further, I refer you, Judge Mangan, to the ruling of The Supreme Court in:

Daniel Braddish v. Judge Haugh & DPP [2001] IESC 45; [2002] 1 ILRM 151 (18 May 2001)

In the opinions of Denham, Hardiman & Geoghegan JJ., binding upon this Court:

“It is the duty of the Gardaí, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence. This is so whether the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence or not, and regardless of whether it assists the case the prosecution is advancing or not.”


In light of all the law stated above, and asserting its applicability to my case, I make application for

Completion of the ‘Gary Doyle’ order, to include:

a. Written statements of all members of An Garda Siochana involved in the incident at Shannon Airport on 17/9/2005, who intend to appear for the prosecution.

b. Written statements of all members of the Airport Police involved in the incident at Shannon Airport on 17/9/2005, who intend to appear for the prosecution.

c. Written statements of other Airport employees involved in the incident at Shannon Airport on 17/9/2005, who intend to appear for the prosecution.

d. Written statements of all CIA agents or covert or overt US military operatives at Shannon Airport on 17/9/2005, who intend to appear for the prosecution.

e. Written statements of Garda Members in Charge at Shannon Garda Station between the times of 15:00 on 17/09/2005 and 11:30 on 18/09/2005.


A discovery or disclosure order against the State, to include:

1. Disciplinary and criminal records of members of An Garda Siochana involved in the incident at Shannon Airport on 17/9/2005, who intend to appear for the prosecution. [public officials whose record must be open to scrutiny]

2. Disciplinary and criminal records of members of Airport Police involved in the incident at Shannon Airport on 17/9/2005, who intend to appear for the prosecution. [public officials whose record must be open to scrutiny]

3. The names and contact details of those Gardai who were involved but do not intend to appear for the prosecution [i.e. potential witnesses for defence].

4. The names and contact details of those APO’s who were involved but do not intend to appear for the prosecution [i.e. potential witnesses for defence].

5. The names of all Central Intelligence Agency agents and U.S. Military covert or overt operatives working at Shannon Airport or its environs on 17/9/2005, as I have reason to believe they have information and knowledge relating to this case [such persons are known to gather intelligence in and around Shannon Airport – evidence of this can be produced], and I wish to canvass them as witnesses for the Defence.

6. A true full-size copy of the custody record of Conor Cregan for 17 + 18 Sept. 2005.

A further discovery or disclosure order against the State, to include:

1. all CCTV at Shannon Airport on the 17/09/2005 in a format accessible to the defence i.e. VHS, DVD or DivX.


An access order, to include:

1. restricted areas at Shannon Airport namely the Arrivals Hall/Baggage reclaim area to take measurements and to make a sketch of the area

2. inspect the CCTV equipment used in the Airport.


And, in light of your previous behaviour, Judge Mangan, towards me, and the law stated above, and asserting its applicability to my case, I make application for

An order for records, to take the form of:

1. full transcripts to be made of all future proceedings relating to my case, and provided at no cost to the Defendant.

2. certified true copies of the record of the Court, to be provided at no cost to the Defendant."

------ end of written material handed up ------