A District Court judge has upheld the decision of a Garda Chief Superintendent to refuse an Anti-Austerity Alliance councillor a permit for door-to-door and street collection.
Judge Michael Coghlan said the decision of Division Chief Supt Orla McPartlin to refuse Councillor Mick Murphy a permit was fair and reasonable and did not breach his constitutional rights.
Lawyers for the AAA had argued the decision amounted to the targeting of a political party. They said it attacked a range of constitutional rights, including the right to stand for election, because it prohibited fundraising for an election campaign.
The AAA said it will seek a judicial review of today's ruling in the High Court.
In July, Mr Murphy, a member of the party, applied to Chief Supt McPartlin for a permit to carry out a collection. The application was made under the Street and House to House Collection Act.
Chief Supt McPartlin refused the application because it was her opinion that the proceeds of the collection or part of the proceeds would be used in a manner to encourage directly or indirectly the commission of unlawful acts.
In evidence at a previous hearing, Chief Supt McPartlin told Judge Coghlan that she was aware Mr Murphy had been involved in a public order incident on 15 November last year.
She said there were also many protests against Irish Water installing meters in her division over the previous six to nine months.
She refused Mr Murphy's application for permission to have collections because she believed it would be used, or would help people, to engage in further protests.
Today counsel for Mr Murphy and the AAA said the decision by Chief Supt McPartlin was frustrating the rights of citizens to stand in an election and their right to access to democracy.
He said it was a frustration of the democratic process.
David Langwallner, BL, said it was a "blanket ban" or "carte blanche refusal" of a permit for the Anti-Austerity Alliance.
He said this was clear from the letter of refusal issued by the Chief Supt in which she referred to previous protests involving the AAA and the possibility of future protests.
He said Mr Murphy was clearly asking for the permit on behalf of the AAA and not in a personal capacity and this was what Chief Supt McPartlin had in mind when she refused the permit.
He said the party needed to fundraise for the next general election and the money was not intended to fund protests.
He said the AAA did not organise the Jobstown protest or encourage anyone to commit offences.
However, counsel for An Garda Síochána Peter Leonard, BL, said the decision not to grant a permit was not a blanket ban on the AAA.
He said the gardaí fully accepted the validity of the AAA as a political party and its right to collect funds.
He said the Chief Supt gave her reasons in good faith and it was a "singular decision" made about Mr Murphy's application and not one directed towards the AAA in general.
He said there was correspondence between the parties in which the Supt was asked if it was a blanket ban on the AAA being granted a permit and she had replied "rest assured, no".
He said the Oireachtas had decided that the appropriate person to decide on the granting of permits was a Chief Supt and a court could adapt the general principle that if a person has an certain expertise the court need not look beyond their evidence unless it is unreasonable or irrational.
Lawyers for the AAA had argued that the section of the act under which the garda had made her decision had been struck down by the Supreme Court.
They said there was no longer an obligation on the court to accept the evidence of a garda in such matters and instead it should adopt the opposite approach when dealing with issues of human rights.
However, the judge ruled that another part of the act remained lawful and it was under this section that the decision was made.
He said it was an administrative decision and the law allowed holders of certain positions discretion to make such decisions.
Judge Coghlan said the decision for the court was whether or not the decision could be made under the legislation and he found that it could.
He said he was satisfied with regard to her policing experience that the Chief Superintendent had come to her conclusion not only in a fair and reasonable manner but with regard to the Constitutional principles of fairness.
With regard to whether or not it was a human rights issue or the interference with a political act, he said they were not dealing with the ability of a political party to fundraise as there were several different ways to raise funds.
"We are talking about door to door collections here ... which at best could be described as an invasion of privacy in the home or nothing short of coercion upon that individual to give in circumstances where they might not wish to."
The judge said it was a "reasonably interesting case" from a public importance point and made no order for costs against the AAA.
Party representatives said they would be seeking a judicial review in the High Court.
