Ciarán Mulholland

Mr Dowling, along with Edward Horgan, was acquitted in January 2023 of criminal damage, but convicted of trespass arising out of an incident at Shannon Airport in April 2017 when “Danger, danger, don’t fly” was written on a US aircraft.

A statement from Mulholland Law read: “This is a significant victory for our client and for the fundamental protections that must underpin every criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court identified a fundamental error of law in the directions given to the jury. Where the prosecution alleged trespass with intent to commit criminal damage, the question of lawful excuse was relevant to whether the alleged intended conduct constituted a criminal offence. The jury had not been properly directed on that important aspect of the prosecution’s case.”

Ciarán Mulholland, solicitor for Mr Dowling, added: “Today’s judgment is an important victory for Dan and for human rights in the administration of criminal justice. The right to a fair trial requires that a jury be properly directed on every essential ingredient of the offence alleged.

“These protections have practical consequences. A criminal conviction cannot safely stand where a fundamental legal error has deprived the jury of the directions necessary to determine the charge correctly.

“Dan has pursued this appeal through the courts over proceedings arising from events more than nine years ago. We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to allow his appeal and its conclusion that the public interest would not be served by a retrial.

“This judgment demonstrates why access to effective legal representation and appellate scrutiny matters. Fundamental errors must be corrected, and the rights of an accused person must remain central to the administration of justice.

“This judgment provides important clarification of the law on criminal trespass and lawful excuse, issues that can arise in cases involving civil disobedience. It may also have significant implications for ongoing prosecutions before Ennis Circuit Court arising from alleged directaction at Shannon Airport.”

In deciding against a retrial, the Court took account of the particular circumstances, including the minor nature of the offence as treated by the trial judge and the fact that the sentence had long since been served.

The Court also provided guidance on the scope and limits of lawful excuse in criminal damage cases. It explained that an honest belief in a protective purpose is not sufficient on its own: the conduct must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances as the accused believed them to be, with a causal connection to protecting people or property. It considered defacing an aircraft in Ireland too remote from preventing killings abroad to establish that connection.

The Court expressly declined to determine whether Mr Dowling’s activities constituted protected protest or whether his conviction disproportionately interfered with freedom of expression.