Many people were shocked to learn on Friday that a 17 year old had been found guilty of false imprisonment because of his participation in a protest.

There was no allegation or charge against him of any violence-----

Deputy-----

-----and he was recognised-----

Before the Deputy continues-----

Sure.

-----I refer him to the fact that all Members will be aware of the long-standing ruling of the House that decisions of a court cannot be subjected to review or discussion in the Dáil. I am not pre-empting what the Deputy will say but I feel I should say that. The ruling is particularly important where an appeal may be pending. I request the Deputy to exercise discretion when making his comments. Perhaps he might focus on public policy rather than a specific case.

That is fine. I was in touch with the Ceann Comhairle's office to-----

I am not taking up the Deputy's time.

Sure. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The Deputy has three minutes.

I will speak about the implications of the judgment.

The Deputy should speak generally.

I will. There was no allegation or charge against the boy of any violence, and he was recognised by the judge as having led a blameless life. However, he was found guilty of false imprisonment because he sat in front of a car and encouraged others to do so, he participated in a slow march, he used a megaphone to chant "No way, we won't pay" and he momentarily stood in Deputy Joan Burton's way and asked her to talk to him. That is it. He was protesting, not kidnapping.

Deputy Paul Murphy agreed-----

I am not asking the Taoiseach-----

The Deputy has been specific.

Sure.

I ask him to focus on public policy-----

I will.

-----rather than a specific case because it could well be sub judice if there is an appeal pending. I therefore ask him to observe long-standing traditions of this House, otherwise he cannot be allowed to continue.

Okay. In the boy's trial, his barrister argued that to find him guilty would be a recipe for totalitarianism-----

Deputy Paul Murphy must-----

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle-----

He cannot do this. He cannot change unilaterally the long-standing tradition of this House-----

I am not doing so.

I ask him to be general and talk about public policy rather than a specific case.

Okay. I will quote Jimmy Kelly, the leader of a trade union in this country, namely, Unite.

A good one.

He said that this judgment could "effectively criminalise democratic protest, and [this could] have very serious implications for our democracy". This goes far beyond this particular case or those of others facing pending trials next year or even the anti-water charges movement as a whole. It strikes at a very core of democracy and the right of people to protest. The dramatic broadening of the definition of false imprisonment constitutes a threat to basic civil liberties. It is a threat to the right of trade unionists to mount effective pickets; it is a threat to the right of anti-war activists to have sit-down protests; it is a threat to the right of pro-choice activists to have a slow march. Does the Taoiseach think that in future those who engage in sit-down protests, slow marches or pickets should be criminalised and face the charge of false imprisonment with a possible sentence of up to life in prison?

I will give a few examples over the past years that could now be judged to be false imprisonment. In August 2014, effective pickets were mounted by striking Greyhound workers campaigning against massive cuts to their wages. Those pickets stopped strike-breaking trucks from leaving the yard. The Taoiseach or anyone else can agree or disagree with that action, but the question is whether he thinks that effective picketing should be classed as false imprisonment and treated as such. In October 2014, farmers blockaded meat factories in protest against cattle prices. Again, the Taoiseach can agree or disagree with their actions, but does he think their actions should be counted and treated as false imprisonment? What about students having sit-down protests, which has happened on multiple occasions, delaying multiple Ministers, including even former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, in 1989 in UCD? Should that now be treated as false imprisonment? Does the Taoiseach think protest should now be criminalised and treated as false imprisonment?

I ask the Taoiseach to deal with the general question.

I have always held the view that peaceful protest in this country has always been permissible and will continue to be permissible. There is a difference, however, in the blocking of a public road to prevent people from going about their duty. Deputy Paul Murphy is also aware that the-----

That is incredible.

-----courts have been completely independent of the political system. It is a matter for the judges to interpret what the law is, and in the particular case the Deputy mentions no conviction has been recorded against the young man. Peaceful protest will always be part and parcel of our country, and I hope that will be respected for what it is.

Deputy Paul Murphy may generalise again.

There is a contradiction in the Taoiseach's answer. He said that peaceful protest has always been permitted, but then went on to say that the blocking of a public road may not be. The blocking of public roads has often been a part of peaceful protest. If a protest goes down a road, generally the people behind are impeded in their progress. The Taoiseach was met by sit down protesters in Galway, I think, in 2012. Many Ministers have been met by sit-down protests in UCD. I think Labour members were involved in sit-down protests-----

-----over the use of Shannon Airport in the past.

That is different, though.

Are the cases I outlined, which involve the blocking of roads and acts of civil disobedience as part of effective protest to be allowed or not? Not only not allowed, but are they to be prosecuted with one of the most serious possible charges in the State, that of false imprisonment. What has happened is a threat to the right to protest. On the basis of the evidence presented, that was all he was accused of. There was no kidnapping involved. It was simply protesting. The question is whether protest is to be allowed anymore or is to be banned and deemed as false imprisonment.

It is a matter for the Judiciary as to the interpretation of the law.

We write the law.

Public peaceful protest has always been perfectly legitimate in Ireland. I have a very strong view that people going about their legitimate business should not be prevented from doing so. In that case there is always a difference in the kind of protest. People going about their business should not be prevented from so doing.

The Taoiseach is criminalising protest.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

Peaceful protest has always been part and parcel of Ireland and long may it continue to be so.