Diarmuid Breatnach
(Reading time: 3 mins.)
Stephen Bedford, a social and anti-racist activist pleaded guilty to ‘reckless endangerment’and was sentenced in a Dublin district Court on 27th March to 16 months jail in a case exhibiting concerning features in the judge’s treatment of the case.
According to a summary of the media report of the trial and the evidence given there, Bedford attempted to drive through a crowd of far-Right people blocking a road. No explanation was reported as to why he was doing that, the inference being that he was attacking the far-Rightists.
However, those who have known Bedford in the context of assisting migrants and other people in difficult social and economic situations, along with opposing fascists and other racists know him as a consistent pacifist.
On one occasion he was seen accepting an invitation to an ‘open mic’ from a group of fascists and racists holding a weekly event during the Covid restrictions (which they ignored), apparently under the misapprehension that discussing with mobilised fascists could be of some benefit.
He was not speaking long when heckled, with which he disagreed politely but the MC grabbed the mic (no longer ‘open’!) off him, he was assaulted by fascists in the crowd and pushed into the road whereupon a couple of nearby Gardaí removed him further without even a word to his assailants.
Bedford was not seen to strike any of his assailants, even in self-defence.
How does that match an alleged attempt to drive through a crowd? Bedford’s purpose or state of mind at the time of the incident is not clear from the reporting. But importantly, none of his far-Right accusers or Gardaí produced a report of injury to anybody; not a foot, a hand or even a finger.
Bedford could have fought the case instead of pleading guilty and expecting mercy from the judge.
But perhaps he acted on the advice of his lawyer? Such does often happen and of course the lawyers will not be paying the cost of their advice. According to the report, his lawyer did tell the court that Bedford had a diagnosis high on the scale of some mental illness, though unspecified.
His lawyer also told the court that Bedford had an important assessment meeting approaching in that regard and that it would be important for Bedford to be able to attend that appointment.
SENTENCING
The judge could have given Bedford a non-custodial sentence, especially in the circumstances of no injury to anyone. Even if considering a custodial, he could have held off until Bedford kept that appointment and have called for a psych report before deciding on sentence.
He did none of those things, instead sentencing Bedford immediately to jail time, callously commenting that it would be up to the prison authorities to decide whether to let him attend that mental health service appointment.
Even within the context of a custodial sentence, 16 months was savage in the circumstances.
It is hard not to see this either as a brutal extension of its talons to strike by a biased individual with judicial power, or as a warning from one upholding the system to anti-fascists that their activities will not be tolerated, particularly in the context of a political climate of rising repression.
End.
Media SOURCE
rebelbreeze 