Formal Complaint of Criminal Interference in a District Court Criminal Prosecution
(As ‘provisionally’ submitted to Bridewell Garda Station on Nov 10th 2016 – 2 pages)
Statement of evidence of Stephen Manning of Forthill, Ballyhaunis, Co. Mayo, a member of Integrity
Ireland. I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make
this statement knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable for prosecution if I say anything
in it which I know to be false or misleading or do not believe to be true.
On November 9th 2016 I was in attendance at Court No 2 at the Criminal Courts of Justice acting as
the lay-prosecutor in a case before the District Criminal Court. Barrister Kenneth Kerins and Solicitor
Liz Hughes of Hughes Murphy, Solicitors, of 13 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2, (FREEPHONE: 1800 910
912 Landline: 01 6798566 Fax:01 6350314. Email: [email protected]) were representing the
four accused, who are members of An Garda Síochána stationed in Dublin. The charges include
allegations of physical assault causing harm and criminal damage, and it has previously been
established in Court before Judge Bryan Smyth that a prima facie case exists for prosecution.
Barrister
Kenneth Kerins
Solicitor
Liz Hughes
Garda Sgt
Stephen Boyce
Garda
Declan Murray
Garda
Mick McGrath
Garda
Keith Lambe
During the course of the hearing of Nov 9th Barrister Kenneth Kerins produced a sheaf of papers
purporting to be the original copies of the summonses that had been duly served on the accused by
me, in accordance with District Court Rules. Mr Kerins asserted in open Court that there was “no
visible Judge’s signature” – upon which basis he asserted that ‘service’ was therefore invalid – which
in turn could have given apparent ‘legitimate cause’ for Judge Smyth to dismiss the case. I hereby
state absolutely and unequivocally that those particular
papers in the possession of Mr Kerins were fraudulent
instruments inasmuch as the signatures of Judge Bryan
Smyth had been deliberately and purposefully removed at
some time after I had dispatched copies to the Defendants
and to the DPP’s Office, and at some time before they had
been presented to the Court. I asked Mr Kerins numerous
times to account for where he got those particular
documents but both himself and solicitor Liz Hughes
repeatedly failed or refused to provide me with that
information – both during and after the said hearing. I also
requested that Judge Bryan Smyth direct Mr Kerins to
furnish me (as the prosecutor and original ‘common
informer’ complainant in this case) with that specific
information, but Judge Smyth likewise failed to so direct,
even though Judge Smyth was the actual signatory to those
original summonses in the first place.
I advised both Mr Kerins and Judge Bryan Smyth that I
believed that a deliberate and premeditated fraud was
being perpetuated on the Court and that I would not
knowingly be party to any such criminal act – and that I
intended to withdraw from proceedings and lodge a
criminal complaint with An Garda Síochána as well as
approach the High Court in relation to the apparent
illegalities ongoing in Court No 2 that day; whereupon Mr
Kerins declared that if I ‘withdrew’ from the hearing that he
would immediately request that the Judge strike out all the charges against the four accused. I
argued that the whole process was unjust and unfair and certainly not ‘in the overall interests of
justice’ but my objections were either ignored, sidelined or overruled by Judge Smyth. I also asked
Mr Kerins to clarify if those particular documents had come from the DPP’s Office, but again, he
refused to clarify, and Judge Smyth likewise failed or refused to direct Mr Kerins to answer. I further
note that Mr Kerins made a specific point of requesting that Judge Smyth return the contested
documents into his personal possession before he left the Court because Mr Kerins was, “under
strict instructions to hold onto those papers” (or words almost exactly to that effect). In my opinion,
this implies that the source of those fraudulent documents was fully aware of the potential of those
documents to prove criminal interference in this case, and did NOT want those fraudulent
documents to fall into the hands of anyone (such as myself or An Garda Síochána for example) who
might use them as documentary evidence of fraud, deception, criminal damage and a premeditated
attempt to pervert, obstruct or interfere with the course of justice; which are each serious criminal
offences. I therefore respectfully request that An Garda Síochána investigates this matter as a
matter of urgency in light of the fact that this case remains ‘active’ and is scheduled for another
hearing on February 2nd 2017 – by which time, said matters must of course be clarified and properly
addressed in order to serve the interests of justice. I say that I will be alerting Judge Bryan Smyth,
Barrister Kenneth Kerins, Solicitor Liz Hughes and any and all other ‘interested parties’ of this
criminal complaint, and I respectfully urge the Gardaí to act upon this most serious matter with the
greatest urgency in the overall interests of justice and so as to maintain the confidence of the public
in the Irish justice system. Thank you to the duty Garda for taking the time to accept this complaint.
Signed: Stephen Manning.
A member of Integrity Ireland and independent candidate for Co. Mayo.
ADDITIONAL NOTICE & GENERAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
If any member of the public – or indeed any member of the establishment – has any information
that would shed more light on how Court documents in a criminal case could be altered in this
manner and then presented to the Court by eminent legal professions as if they were ‘legitimate
originals’ please contact the Bridewell Garda Station, Chancery Street, Dublin 7, on 01 666 8200.
If indeed an act of fraud, criminal damage or any other deliberate attempt to interfere with, obstruct
or pervert the course of justice HAS in fact occurred here, then clearly it is crucially important to get
to the bottom of this matter ‘asap’ – otherwise, it leaves the door open for other agents of the State
to present fraudulent documents to the Court – something which obviously cannot be tolerated in a
State which is governed by a Constitution that declares that we are all “equal before the law”.
“One by one – together – we CAN make a difference!”