Essay by Andries van Tonder (in private capacity)
22 October 2017
Edited – 10 June 2018 by Andrew van Tonder
Since 2008 I became aware of many instances where justice in Ireland is only available to a selected few.
I authored or co-authored several essays on the subject under different titles and will keep writing until I see some progress .
I do not know why some people are absolutely immune from prosecution on indictable offences, while others can be jailed for a the smallest summary offence.
In this example I am highlighting my experience with one specific accused person and the resulting reaction by authorities. The reason for the apparent immunity is not known. The reader may draw his/her own conclusion.
I met Niall Doyle on Facebook around 2012 after he sent me a friend request.
I learned that he is a typical “social media politician and campaigner” attacking rightly many injustices, but also seeming to go overboard on other issues.
His writings can sometimes be classified as in contravention of the “CECPT Declaration”, referring to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism – Article 5
Mr Doyle will attack his victims using several aliases and other “Pages” and “Groups” to create the impression that the attacks come from different individuals.
At one stage 8 aliases, pages and group posts could be directly linked to him, identified by the IPV6 address of the person posting. Email responses also identified the same device and name used by several aliases. Video messaging even identified MAC addresses of devices used by him.
During 2013 Mr Doyle decided that I should be one of his targets. This decision was apparently made after a volunteer of the organisation I also serve with voluntarily, reported his lady friend to An Garda Síochána, under the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, after abuse of a child was apparently observed and video recorded.
I reported the resulting attacks and offences committed against me and supplied around 300 pages of evidence which included screen captures, forensic evidence, links and downloaded pages. The report was never registered on the Garda PULSE system and the statement and evidence just disappeared. I was unofficially notified that Mr Doyle was friends with the family of the investigating officer. This has not been confirmed.
In 2016 the attacks became so serious that the High Court was approached for help. The matter was referred to the District Court in Mullingar where I reported the offences under the Common Informer rule. An Garda Síochána undertook to investigate the offences again. This happened...
Again full evidence was supplied to the investigating officers. A file briefly outlining apparently only one of many offences, as alleged hereunder, was submitted to the DPP who decided that there was insufficient evidence to initiate prosecution.
Under this heading I will compare other known examples similar to Mr Doyle's, with his. The reader can draw his/her own conclusions and opinions.
Contempt of the Court
Compare: Colm Granaham was to appear on 18 October 2017 in the District Court as accused in a summary offence. Colm, who underwent triple bypass surgery, could not attend as he was not well and in hospital under treatment. The judge did not accept the reason and demanded letters from the doctors and possible attendance of the doctors in court to confirm that Colm is very ill. The matter nevertheless went ahead and Colm was tried in absentia, without opportunity to defend himself. He was found guilty and sentenced.
And: Niall Doyle was to appear on 19 October 2017 in another District Court as the accused in an assault case. He did not arrive and the judge was told that Mr Doyle was unwell and was going to attend the doctor for a chest infection. Excuse accepted and matter adjourned.
Harassment - Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997
Compare: Sean Carraher was found guilty of posting about 50 messages on the websites Rate-Your-Solicitor and Victims of the Legal Profession as well as making harassing phone calls to a member of An Garda Síochána. In the postings less than 5 different accusations were made.
Mr Carraher was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
The web pages where the publications were made, had such limited appeal that the web traffic statistics organisation ALEXA could not rate them, meaning that less than 500 unique visitors were recorded.
(See news item at http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-sergeant-man-found-guilty-harassment-2878125-Jul2016/ )
And: At least 6 individuals are known to have complained about online harassment by Niall Doyle involving several allegations.
In my case, Mr Doyle is guilty of posting more than 300 messages on the website Facebook and at least 2 other websites. These postings were shared on several pages by Mr Doyle (in one count only, 80 shares were listed), as well as by many of his followers that counted at least 1200 before he changed the privacy settings on his pages.
Many of the allegations were also repeated and expanded on in private messages.
The allegations were clearly a smear campaign. The postings are deprived of the truth, being a clear attempt at bullying. The postings are made to intentionally or recklessly, seriously interfere with mine and others peace and privacy and cause alarm, distress or harm to the people targeted, and the acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.
According to ALEXA, Facebook had a regular viewer list exceeding 300 Million in 2013. The last public post in 2017 was visible to around 2 Billion regular subscribers. Judging from recorded reactions on some of the posts, at least 900 persons confirmed reading one or more of the posts.
The DPP decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Endangerment - Section 13 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997
Compare: Jamie Marshall was found guilty in 2017 and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Ronan McGrath and Fergal Cagney were sentenced 15 months for the same offence after it caused the death of the victim.
Martin Maughan was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment after dangerous driving.
And: Mr Doyle intentionally and recklessly engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to my person and other persons. His actions did cause physical assault on myself, physical assault needing hospitalisation on a child, damage to my car that could have resulted in a fatal accident, other damage to property where the risk of physical harm was possible, harm to my child to the extent that it created a risk of bullycide.
Mr Doyle openly declared in at least one post that he will continue the actions until at least the total elimination of myself and at least one other mentioned person.
The DPP decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Incitement to Hatred - Section 2 of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989
Compare: John Cooney Jason Holmes was found guilty in September 2017 and fined.
Several examples of guilty verdicts are known in other jurisdictions.
And: Niall Doyle published and distributed written material in a place other than inside a private residence. Said publishing is so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence. The written material, words, behaviour, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
The material did stir up hatred against myself and my son with the resulting outcomes as outlined above.
The DPP decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Sending of messages which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing - Section 13 of the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 (as amended by the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007)
Compare: In 2017, John Cooney was initially sentenced to prison, but on appeal he received a suspended sentence and community service.
According to statistics and other published rulings, some accused persons, at least 350 in 2013, received fines for as little as using the “f” four letter word in a text message.
And: Even though undeniable evidence connected Mr Doyle with worse actions, the DPP decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Disclosing “in camera” Information - Section 29 of the Child Care Act 1991 (as amended)
Due to the in camera rule, I risk sanction if I supply names in this essay. On order of the court I will supply more information on the examples given hereunder.
Compare: A father was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for informing the parish priest about his case and the reasons his children were taken into care. The father was asking for intervention or advocacy.
A warrant of arrest was issued for the parents of a 15 year old girl, wrongly taken into care, after they discussed the matter with their employers.
A mother was summonsed to the district court after she asked the help of a McKenzie friend with a Habeus Corpus application in the High Court.
Many more examples can be given.
And: Niall Doyle published information on 3 different matters, involving 5 children visible to millions. The CFA legal department was notified by two different persons, who also supplied copies of the published information. The CFA, who usually act immediately if such information is received, did not act at all against Mr Doyle.
The offences were also highlighted to An Garda Síochána who submitted a file to the DPP who decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Publishing information that can identify a child - Section 31-(1) of the Child Care Act 1991 (as amended)
Compare: Two newspaper editors published information “that may may lead to the identification of a child by people that know the family”. They were found guilty and were issued with a substantial fine.
A parish priest published a request in a pew leaflet asking members of the congregation to pray for the family and the children. The priest was charged but not sentenced after argument that it was a koinonia practice that is protected under freedom of religion. Nevertheless he received a stern warning from the judge.
Many more examples can be given.
And: Niall Doyle published information on 3 different matters. From said information at least 3 of the children could be identified. In one matter he published the name and address of the child, as well as information of the child's past primary and present secondary school. The information published caused the child to suffer serious bullying and on one occasion an assault that caused the child to be hospitalised.
The CFA legal department was notified by two different persons who also supplied copies of the published information. The CFA, who usually act immediately if information is received, did not act at all against Mr Doyle.
The offences were also highlighted to An Garda Síochána who submitted a file to the DPP who decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Causing Serious Harm - Section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997
Compare: Searching the Internet, several examples were seen where the accused did receive a sentence. In one example, a life sentence was ordered by the court.
And: The posts of Mr Doyle did at least indirectly cause serious harm to one child who is still under treatment after serious bullying nearly ending in bullycide.
The DPP decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Dishonestly operating a computer with the intention of making a gain - Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001
Decide for yourself: Mr Doyle operated the computer to gain popularity for himself while it caused and is still causing loss to others.
The DPP decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
Withholding information on certain offences against children - Section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012
Decide for yourself: In his posting and ranting, it is clear that Mr Doyle professes to have information implicating several individuals and employees of the C.F.A. in offences under the Schedules of this act. Mr Doyle does not mention that he reported the offences and I have no evidence that he did.
The DPP decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Niall Doyle.
I do not know of any enactment giving immunity against any of the above alleged offences to a state plant or informer. I do not know if he is an informer or state plant that is unofficially protected from prosecution for serious offences. I know that he is charged in at least one other case with a summary offence.
The possibility does exist that the file submitted to the DPP was watered down such an extent that the DPP rightly could not initiate prosecution. Due to the lack of transparency, this point can not be confirmed.
I am certain that an investigation may highlight at least incompetent investigation and/or deliberate withholding evidence from the DPP and/or intimidation of the investigating officer and/or protection of a state plant or informer. The reader must form his/her own opinion.......
The posts and profiles deleted by Mr Doyle, can be verified by law enforcement from preserved records of Facebook archives, until November 2017. If no request for a preservation extension is received by Facebook, said archives might be deleted.
