Tipperary farmer into his fifth month in prison

international | rights, freedoms and repression | news report

Tuesday June 19, 2007 21:25

by william considine

A couple of months ago the story of Thomas Kennedy's unlawful imprisonment was carried on Indymedia. In the meantime he remains in prison being periodically brought back to Judge Olive Buttimers Court. He believes he is unjustly imprisoned and Judge Buttimer states she will keep him in prison until he changes his mind. Justice, the Kennedy family and the tax payer is the loser in Olive Buttimers merry-go-round. This is todays episode.

Today I witnessed a court hearing in the South East Circuit Court in Wexford before Judge Olive Buttimer.

Around 2.30pm, elderly Tipperary farmer, Tom Kennedy was bought into the court room by two prison officers with handcuffs and chains. He was warmly greeted by his son, brother and other supporters and they took there places in the centre of the court.

There were preliminary exchanges of words and papers between the judge and one of the prison officers.

Judge Buttimer then asked Tom what he had to say for himself. Tom rose in a dignified manner before the court and clearly read from three sheets of paper. The judge did not face him, or look at him, and sat sideways and appeared to be engossed in some yellow coloured papers in her hand.

At the end of Tom's presentation she asked if he was yet ready to change his mind. He said he was not. Judge Buttimer then recommitted Tom to prison and ordered that he be brought before her again on 3rd July.

Afterwards. I was allowed to speak with Tom and he gave me the three pages and asked me to copy them and publicise them. I transcribe the three pages below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Nenagh court on June 12th, 2007, I was unlawfully recommitted to prison by you, Judge Buttimer. I will now draw your attention to the Supreme Court Case DPP Stafford V Fagan 1994 I.R.265 at 288.
Denham J. said:

"A cornerstone of the Rule of Law is that persons in authority must be able to justify their actions if called upon to do so by reference to a specific rule in statute or in common law"

Judge Buttimer, you failed to identify any such law or statute to justify your action. You asked me "if I was successful in a court case, would I expect to have that court order enforced?" You have asked me the same question on several occasions so for the record I am now advising the court that my answer is as follows:

I would not expect any individual to recognise a court order that was made in excess of jurisdiction and which would unlawfully dispossess any person of their property and have the effect of unlawfully committing that person to prison.

It is well to remember here the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of Burke V Minister for Labour 1979 I.R. 354 in which the court stressed constitutional propriety, natural justice and fairness in procedures.

Henchy J. for the Supreme Court said;

"....it is to be necessarily inferred as part of the legislative intention that the bodywhich makes the orders will excercise its functions, not only with constitutional propriety and due regard to natural justice, but also within the framework and terms and objects of the relevant act, and with basic fairness, reasonableness and good faith. The absoluteness of the delegation is susceptible of unjust and tyranous buse unless its operation is thus confined" quoted in J.M. Kelly, The Irish Constitution, page 254

Today, I am a victim of that unjust and tyranous abuse and have been since you unlawfully committed me to prison on March 6th 2007

It is necessary to refer here to what Barrister, Mr Patrick Tracey, said on June 12th 2007, at the court in Nenagh oncerning my Habeus Corpus hearing at the Four Courts where Mr Justice McGovern presided. Mr Tracey did not attend that hearing and he misrepresented to the court at Nenagh, what Justice McGovern expressed at the Four Courts. Justice McGovern did not refer to my rights at that hearing. What the Honourable judge did imply was that my rights were infringed. He confirmed the lawful existence of Justice Gilligan's order. When he examined Justice Herbert's order, he said: "How could he (Herbert) vacate Justice Gilligan's order?"

Justice McGovern advised me to appeal the (your) committal order. When the barrister representing Cork prison was asked to prove to the court that I was lawfully detained, he failed to do so. The barrister told the court that he only had a committal order and that the judge that made the committal order (yourself) may have made a mistake. There were several witnesses in court who can support this evidence.

I ask you now to take honourable action and admit you made a mistake and release me from unlawful custody.

Thomas Kennedy, Rossestown, Thurles, Co Tipperary