Established a century ago this week, Ireland’s autonomous judicial system has played a vital role in unveiling significant events in the country’s history. The series of landmark cases one of them being the participation of ardent trade union leader, “Big Jim” Larkin, in the inaugural case of the newly established Irish Supreme Court. Remarkably, just a year after his first appearance before the court, Larkin made a return.
The year 1924 wasn’t bright for Ireland, just having emerged from the Civil War, the newly-formed Irish Free State was grappling with economic downturn, pervasive unemployment, wage-cut protests and an acute food crisis due to poor yields after constant downpours.
However, amid these challenges, the State underwent a fundamental transformation with the enactment of the Courts of Justice Act on 12th April 1924, establishing an autonomous judicial system. A few weeks later, on 11th June 1924, a grand opening ceremony of the new courts took place at Dublin Castle, which in the words of Hugh Kennedy, the pioneer chief justice of Ireland, declared “the end of Gael’s silence in the courts of law”.
Merely five days post this event, the Irish Supreme Court heard its first appeal; it was a case against Jim Larkin allegedly accountable for significant discrepancies in the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union’s financial records over a prolonged period. Union’s general president, Thomas Foran, and its executive council, had put forward these allegations while Larkin was trying to re-establish his leadership of the ITGWU after his return from the US in 1923. The trial commenced after Larkin alongside his relatives tried to seize control of the union’s offices in June 1923, and it started before the master of the rolls, Sir Charles Andrew O’Connor, at Dublin Castle in February 1924.
The plaintiffs claimed that Larkin had mismanaged union funds for years, turning the union into his personal dominion. They insisted that new regulations, largely approved by the union members, were lawful and that they, as the union’s trustees, were entitled to control its headquarters in Liberty Hall and offices in Parnell Square.
In his separate grievance, Larkin contested the validity of the new regulations. Larkin, now self-represented after discharging his legal counsel, asserted serious accusations, fraud included, against the plaintiffs. Most of his accusations were dismissed by the plaintiffs, although they confessed to utilising union monies for political activities.
The judge, following a heated trial, stated that his decision-making would be solely from the perspective of a lawyer and not that of the employer or the employee. Larkin’s counter argument, he ruled, had no grounds. He held that there was no dishonesty or concealment regarding the past expenditure of union monies for political means and its newly adopted rules were aimed at legal compliance.
Larkin’s attempt to forcefully seize possession of the ITGWU premises amounted to strong-arm tactics, the judge declared. “If this is the exemplar for the working class, it will inevitably lead to chaos, and we will regress to savagery rather than existing as a civilised society,” he asserted.
Though Larkin initially appealed, the appeal was retracted on the date of the hearing, June 16th, 1924. The first Chief Justice of Ireland, Hugh Kennedy, dismissed the matter, awarding costs to the union party and increasing their frustration as Larkin was declared bankrupt in late 1924.
In the summer of 1925, a persistent Larkin reappeared before the Supreme Court in an entirely unrelated case, appealing against a £500 defamation charge.
Thomas Johnson, the former leader of the Labour Party in Ireland, accused of being slandered in an article featured in the Irish Worker, under the editorship of Larkin, on May 24th, 1924. The piece criticised Johnson’s recent speech at the Dáil.
Responding to letters from discharged soldiers requesting pensions, Johnson had urged the government to take notice of the increasing unrest and dissatisfaction. He had put forward that the government should strategise more thoroughly to handle unemployment and develop a civil and industrial force to address it.
Penned by Larkin’s father James, the Irish Worker’s article under the title “Johnson incites to chaos”, implied that Johnson conveyed that workers who lost their jobs due to the government’s “lethal and self-destructive” policy should be overpowered if they demanded work. “It’s about time Labour confronted this English defector,” the article insinuated.
Johnson contested that the article falsely claimed that he encouraged workers’ murders, was disloyal to the labour force, and has defected to capitalism.
“I’m a member of the Moscow Soviet. These are its principles. Like you, pious Christians have killed people in Belfast,” stated Jim Larkin.
Johnson initiated a defamation lawsuit against Larkin and The Gaelic Press, the publisher of the Irish Worker.
At the trial in April 1925, held in the new Irish High Court, with Mr Justice Thomas O’Shaughnessy and a jury, Larkin confessed to the jury that while he didn’t author the article, he wished he had.
“I would have added more bitterness and insult if I had written it,” asserted the remorseless editor, declaring his endorsement of “every line” and claiming it as “exceptionally accurate, well-grounded and fair”. He guaranteed that he would repeat it even if all the Dublin’s juries ruled against the defendants.
When asked if he thought he was above the law and the jury, he responded, “I am.”
The Irish Times reported heated exchanges during a trial involving Serjeant Hanna KC and Johnson, wherein Hanna declared his beliefs as aligned with Moscow’s principles. In response, Larkin, reportedly still in an agitated state, vehemently agreed, making it clear that he too upheld the principles of Moscow. He disputed preaching to unprepared men one day while instigating violence against them the next. He further extended his defence by claiming membership to the Moscow Soviet and condemned the behaviour of those, akin to Hanna, who committed violent acts under the guise of their Christian faith in Belfast.
In conclusion of the trial in May 1925, the jury made a verdict that the contentious article was defamatory. This instantly resulted in damages being awarded £500 each to Johnson from defendants Larkin and The Gaelic Press.
However, both defendants sought appeal at the Supreme court for a retrial. This was done amidst The Gaelic Press’s decision to retract its appeal subsequent to reaching a settlement on damages with Johnson. The Supreme Court conceded to the appeal later in July 1925, citing the inappropriateness of clubbing two separate damage actions into the same writ. As per the court’s discretion, Larkin was deemed accountable for the damages while being deserving of a new hearing to reconsider the amount. This decision was based on the facts recognized by the trial jury. A new hearing was, however, not proceeded with, likely due to Larkin’s insolvency.