Garda body-cam footage has been used for the first time in a court case for the prosecution of citizen journalist Philip Dwyer for failing to obey a direction to move on during riots in Coolock, Dublin, last year.
The prominent anti-immigration activist made legal history as he was handed a two-month suspended sentence by Judge John Hughes at Dublin District Court on Thursday.
Dwyer, 56, a father of three from Tallaght Cross West, Tallaght, Dublin 24, denied failing to comply with a garda direction and refusing to give gardaí his name and address under the Public Order Act on July 15th at Malahide Road.
There had been unrest in the area after the Government announced plans to use the disused Crown Paints factory to accommodate hundreds of international protection applicants.
Dwyer, who could have faced six months in jail, unsuccessfully ran in last year's European, general and local elections and campaigned for tighter immigration controls.
Following legal submissions by defence counsel Luke O'Higgins, the accused was cleared of refusing to tell gardaí his name.
But Dwyer, who told gardaí at the scene that the case would be "thrown out of court", was found guilty of failing to comply with a direction to leave the area.
He was fined €500 and ordered to report to the Probation Service every three months for the next two years.
Frontline gardaí began using body-cam last year, and yesterday/today's case marked the first time the technology was used in court to secure a conviction.
Dwyer is a self-described citizen journalist.
The court heard he was a trainee journalist on a course, did freelance work with sporadic income, totalling about €500 a year, and relied on social welfare.
The former property manager and window repairman also depended on donations for equipment.
He had testified he had been in the Coolock area that had been there reporting on a subject of national interest. He was live-streaming to 13,000 followers at the time.
The former property manager, with a large social media following, claimed he was singled out. He maintained that he followed a direction given to him by Detective Inspector Alan McDevitt, who had told the hearing that the accused tried to "interview" him immediately after he was given the direction to leave.
Finding him guilty, however, Judge Hughes held that he had not obeyed and did not leave immediately, as required under the law, in a peaceable and orderly manner.
He remarked that it clearly happened during "riotous conditions. The judge went on to describe it as a "very difficult, dangerous, very dynamic and fast-moving situation" where other individuals felt it was appropriate to go "toe to toe with the State".
Detective Inspector McDevitt commanded a Garda public order unit with full riot gear. He recalled that about 200 people were at Malahide Road near the erstwhile factory.
He told prosecutor Mark Donnelly there were threats of violence and arson from males, some of whom were masked.
The situation escalated to throwing pieces of masonry at officers. Two garda car windows were damaged, another vehicle was smouldering, having been set on fire, and fireworks were set off.
Detective Inspector McDevitt instructed his unit to put on helmets and shields and to push the crowd back to the perimeter of Woodie's DIY store on Malahide Road, where a cordon was set up.
After that, he saw 80 – 100 people about 75 metres away at a petrol station. Two large industrial bins were on fire, and Dublin Fire Brigade officers were attacked.
A piece of masonry was thrown and struck Detective Inspector McDevitt's head.
He said a 999 call had been received reporting that people were "trapped" in the petrol station, and he moved the public order unit to that location amid fears of attempts to get at the petrol pumps.
The court heard that Mr Dwyer was not alleged to have been present during any of these incidents, and the judge noted that this evidence was to give context.
Several rioters fled into a nearby McDonald's restaurant, and Detective Inspector McDevitt walked past the takeaway to a pedestrian exit. He said Dwyer was on steps there holding a microphone and his phone as a camera, but he did not know he was a journalist, which the defence disputed.
Detective Inspector McDevitt shouted a caution at a group of youths who fled. Then, he gave the same direction to the accused to leave the area, or he could be arrested, fined or jailed.
He explained that he had an apprehension that public safety, including Mr Dwyer, could be in jeopardy.
He said the accused replied, "What's happening?" and attempted to interview him using his microphone.
Footage from Detective Inspector McDevitt's official body-cam was shown during the hearing.
It picked up Dwyer saying that he was a citizen journalist, and the officer replied: "You're a prisoner now", as he was arrested and handcuffed.
The video showed the accused telling the inspector that he had not refused to leave and that the "people of Ireland have the right to know", and he accused gardaí of being "unable to control unvetted people coming in."
Dwyer was also heard telling them, "This is going to be thrown out of court unless you tell a lot of lies," which the judge found to be indicative of Dwyer's mindset before arrest.
In evidence, the accused claimed he had told youths throwing stones to stop and that he complied with the garda within seconds but had argued his case with the officer and was arrested.
Dwyer believed his arrest was not justified.
The accused said he had asked about updates and that he was reporting on the events in the area but denied trying to interview the garda inspector.
The court heard he had minor road traffic convictions dating back to 2014.
He said the people around him that had been throwing objects had left, and peaceful protesters remained.
Mr Donnelly, prosecuting, stressed that the inspector equipped with a headset was in communication with other officers and knew more than Dwyer about the situation around the wider area when he delivered the direction.
Mr Donnelly submitted that the accused still had to comply immediately with the officer's instruction to leave the vicinity.
The judge agreed with the prosecution and held that the accused was "not protected by the claim of being a journalist, or a citizen journalist, or a credited journalist, or a judge or a priest or whatever, you are still subject to the rigours of section 8 of the Public Order Act."
