Transcript of July 23rd press conference following Irish parliamentarians observing trial session

ULM5 PRESS CONFERENCE DUBLIN 23 July 2026

FOLLOWING VISIT BY DELEGATION OF IRISH PARLIAMENTARIANS TO THE TRIAL IN STUTTGART-STAMMHEIM 22 July 2026

Footage available at: https://youtu.be/_egBpefKUP0

Attending press conference: Richard Boyd Barrett, TD, People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Senator Patricia Stephenson, Social Democrats

Mairéad Farrell TD, Sinn Fein

Duncan Smith TD, Labour

Barry Ward TD, Fine Gael

Also part of delegation

Ruth Coppinger TD, People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Lynn Boylan MEP, Sinn Féin

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Thanks, everybody, for coming along to this press conference. As you can see, I'm joined by Senator Patricia Stephenson, by Mairéad Farrell, from Sinn Fein and by, sorry Patricia from Social Democrats, and Duncan Smith from the Labour Party. And also part of the delegation that travelled over was Ruth Coppinger, who's just traveling back today. So she's not here. Lynn Boylan, who is also MEP for Sinn Féin, is also part of the delegation, as was Barry Ward with Fine Gael. And just by the way, just because I saw some conversation about this was a this was a trip that we decided collectively to go on ourselves, right? And funded and ﬁnanced ourselves, just to be clear. Because of concerns that were raised by Daniel Tatlow-Devally’s family about the conditions of his very severe conditions of his detention and the manner in which the trial was being conducted, which his family felt was completely unfair and suggested that he wasn't receiving a fair trial.

And I think probably I speak for all of us when I say also that we just feel and indeed it's a central part of the defence, is that for Daniel and the Ulm5 to be charged under legislation that relates to organised crime and in conditions that would be normally reserved, for both in terms of their detention, or their trial, that would normally be reserved for people involved in terrorism or organised crime, and represent a serious threat to like, to public safety, is outrageous. Whatever you may think about their protest, I think nobody is suggesting for a moment they represented any threat to human beings, and they didn't. And even the prosecution aren't suggesting that there was any threat to, to human beings. Okay. And they were I think we all would probably be of a mind of saying that whether you agree or disagree with the manner of their protest, these were people acting in good conscience to try and obstruct the commission of a genocide against the people of Palestine and Gaza, and trying to prevent the ﬂow of arms going to the Israeli regime to conduct what our government has agreed is a probable or possible genocide, and that they and as their defence made clear yesterday, that they were really acting what they would see as their obligations and the obligations of governments to act on the Genocide Convention, which is an obligation on everybody to try and deter all the signatories of that Convention, deter the commission of a genocide. So the idea that they're being treated as terrorists or as organised criminals, rather than peace activists or people who are trying to stop, you know, horrors being committed, crimes being committed by the Israeli regime, and those who are providing the Israeli regime, the means to commit those horrors, is just outrageous. So we'll talk a little bit. Not everybody here will say their piece about what they thought, but certainly I think we were, those of us who went to visit Daniel in prison in Ulm, were shocked, really, at the situation there.

He's 10 months now, 23 hours a day, locked up on his own, very little access to exercise or recreation. He had to ﬁght a battle to have access just to the books that he wanted to read. The, in the initial period that he was in there, he was behind a glass cage when he was meeting family members, and it was only because Duncan and myself met with the German ambassador, we think, and raised some of these issues that that that regime changed. But even since most of the harsh conditions have remained, he has great difficulty talking to his legal team while he's in prison and his visits, family visits, we think are one day a month, isn't it? One day, one hour a month. So very, very severe conditions. Travelling long distances to a trial that has been spread then over, initially it was going to be 16 days, spread over several months, now it is 44 different days spread over right up until January of next year.

It's absolutely incredible, you know, so you can imagine the, and critically they are kept in, they're not given bail while this is all going on, when they don't represent any kind of threat to anybody. And a contrast that was made, that our attention was drawn to, is in the same courthouse there were people being tried who were involved in a fascist coup attempt in Germany, which involved the discharging of weapons: 23 shots ﬁred, two police injured, in what was a coup. They have been done for a coup. And the people associated with that coup, some of them are out on bail, were arriving into the courthouse in taxis, are allowed sit beside their legal team, whereas in the court for the Ulm5 the defendants are behind a glass cage can't communicate directly with their defence team despite repeated pleas to the judge that they should be allowed to do so. And where we as parliamentarians had pens and paper took off us on the way in, so were not even allowed take notes. There's no recording or no transcripts of the cases. I mean, it's absolutely shocking stuff. So all of us, I think, are of a mind that at the very least, the government has to send observers. We've asked them several times to witness what's going on, to establish, in our view, they're not having their rights or held to a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence. But it looks like a show trial, and we want the government to do that. And maybe to broadly, more broadly raise the issue whether they should be incarcerated while this trial goes on, given that they don't represent a threat to anybody. And these conditions are very, very severe. So look, I've said enough, but that's some of the things. But and others will want to add their own thoughts. So Duncan so you want to.

Duncan Smith TD - Labour Party

Yeah. I think for us as a group of parliamentarians and politicians who are exercising, angered and motivated by the what's happened in Gaza and the genocide, I think it was important for us to visit, particularly to get a view from the lawyers over there, and perhaps they would have given us a legal perspective that might have tempered our view and put it in a legal context in Germany, and perhaps saying that ‘this is how things are done’.

But what was of great value, I think to us, was how shocked the lawyers of the defence team for Ulm5 are at the treatment. We had extensive brieﬁngs from the legal team teams the evening before, and even in the breaks during the trial, they are aghast at the treatment of their clients, the Ulm5, that they can't confer and speak to them during the trial. To frame it, each member has a legal team with two lawyers. They sit at a desk more or less the size of this. There are three microphones on that desk. Those desks are designed to have a defendant to sit with their legal team. They're not allowed. They’re behind glass, bulletproof glass. As if it's The Hague, as if they've committed war crimes, are accused of war crimes. It is, you know, and that's again, we see that as politicians, but that's what the lawyers are saying as well. They, the lawyers in the courtroom yesterday, one of the lawyers made a comparison to the trials, the show trials that take place in Russia, saying that this is happening in Germany right now. So the treatment of the Ulm5 in their detention, I ﬁrmly believe that whilst this trial goes on they should be out on bail. It would be a be a proportionate position for the crimes that they are accused of. I ﬁrmly believe, as do their lawyers, that they should be able to sit un-cuffed and confer with their legal team whilst the trial is taking place and I and I ﬁrmly believe, as we all do, that if they are to be incarcerated, this solitary conﬁnement and everything has to end.

But this – even the location of this trial in a courthouse that was built in the 70s beside the prison to try the Red Army Fraction sends a message, is about sending a message out to Germans that that this is trying terrorism, not political activism. These ﬁve individuals, Daniel Tatlow-Devally and their colleagues, are not dangerous to any individual in Germany or in any other country. They are expressing their political position in a manner that may, may or may not agree with. That is not the matter at hand. It is how they’re being treated on remand. And in that trial, it does have all the hallmarks of a show trial. It is the heaviest handed response I've ever seen. The fact this is taking place in the largest, most powerful nation and a pillar nation of the European Union is of deep concern. And our call, at the very least, is a modest one that the Minister and the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, send a legal observer. There is precedent for it. They have done it before in trials in Colombia and in other countries. They have sent legal observers to ensure that the human rights of Irish citizens is being upheld. And we'll be writing to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and asking for that to happen. And continuing our pressure on what we want is we want more media interest. We've been heartened by the level of interest in the last couple of days, but I think if journalists from Ireland are able to go over and see for themselves what we saw yesterday, I think they will come back with the same response and the same feelings.

Mairéad Farrell TD - Sinn Féin

IRISH: Go raibh míle maith agaibh as teacht. Ar an gcéad dul síos, chuaigh mé sall chun, em, casadh le Daniel é fhéin sa phriosúin so bhí triúir ann ag an gcuairt sin sa phriosúin, agus be léir nuair a chuaigh mé ann go raibh na coinníollacha in a bhfuil sé ag fanacht go bhfuil siad uasta, go bhfuil siad crua, em, agus chuir sé iontas orm, chuir sé buairt níos mó orm. So chuaigh mé ann buartha agus tháinig mé ar ais i bhfad níos buarthaí caithﬁdh mé a rá. Tá sé ﬁche uair- ﬁche trí uair a chloig in aghaidh an lae i gcill, cill beag, níl sé ach taobh amuigh ar faigh uair a chloig, sin uair a chloig ar maidin, ach seachas sin tá sé leis féin, sa chill. Chomh maith le sin níl ach uair a chloig aige do chuairteoirí chuile mhí. Ní leor sin, tá sé sin fíor-deacair mar a dúirt Richard ag an dtús, bhí sé deacair dó teacht ar leabhair, bhí sé ag iarraidh léamh agus thóg sé sin roinnt míonnaí agus sílim féin mar gheall gur chas Riichard agus Duncan leis an Ambasadóir gurb’in an fáth gur athraigh sé sin. Nuair a d’fhág mé an phriosúin bhí- caithﬁdh mé a rá go bhfuil sé iontach go raibh agóidí amuigh agus chomh luath is a chuaigh muid bhí daoine ann a bhí ag tacú le chás an ‘ﬁve’ agus le chás an Phailistín. Ach ansin bhí muid sa chás chúirte agus ar, em, ar an lá sin, arís eile, léir sé chomh dona is atá cúrsaí ann. Tá siad taobh thiar de balla as gloine, níl siad in ann labhairt lena gcuid dlíodóraí go héasca, caithﬁdh siad é a dhéanmah tríd an mícreafón nó tríd an balla é féin. Ach chomh maith le sin, bhí mé buartha faoin bealach go raibh an aistriúchán á dheanamh ó Béarla go Gearmáinis. Bhí cúpla uair nár ndearneadh an aistriúchán sin i gceart, agus gach aon duine a labhrann níos mó ná teanga amháin, tá a fhios agaibh cé comh tábhachtach is atá aistriúchán cruinn. So, duine acu ná Zo, agus, bhí siad sin ag rá ba chóir go mbeadh sian in ann a bheith ag suí in aice lena dlíodórí agus b’in ceann de na príomh rudaí a bhí cainnt ar inné. Agus nuair a bhí siad ag rá sin, bhí siad ag rá, an fáth ba chóir go mbeadh sé sin sách éasca le déanamh ná mar gheall go raibh trí mícreafón ag an bord, áit ina raibh na dlíodórí. An bealach gur aistríodh sin ná trí cathaoir. Ní hé sin a bhí ráite, agus ba léir go raibh sé sin mícheart. Ag an bpointe sin bhí a fhios ag muintir an lucht éisteachta go raibh sé sin míchruinn agus déanadh beagáinín rac agus mar gheall ar sin d’athríodh sé sin. Ach bhí cúpla rud mar sin agus caithﬁdh mé a rá go raibh mé fíor fíor buartha sin.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Thank you all very much for coming. Firstly, I went over there to meet with Daniel himself in the prison, so there was three of us at that visit to the prison, and it was clear when I went there that the conditions in which he’s being kept are maximum security, they’re harsh, it surprised me and more than that it worried me. I went there worried and I left a lot more worried I have to say. He’s 23 hours a day in a cell, a small cell, he’s only outside for an hour a day, that’s an hour in the morning and other than that he’s alone in a cell. On top of that he only gets one hour of visitation every month. That’s not enough, it’s very hard as Richard said at the start, it was very hard for him to come by any books he wanted to read and that took some months and I think it was only because Richard and Duncan met the ambassador that that changed. When I left the prison there was- I have to say it was great to see protests outside and when we ﬁrst arrived people were there to support the ﬁve and the Palestinian cause. But then we were at the court, and on that day it demonstrated again how bad the conditions are. They’re behind a glass wall, they’re not able to talk to their lawyers easily, they have to do that through microphones or through the wall itself. But on top of that, I’m concerned about the way in which the translation from English to German is happening. There were a few times in which things weren’t translated accurately, and anyone who speaks more than one language knows how important accurate translation is. One of the people, Zo, was saying they should be able to sit next to their lawyers and that was one of the main things discussed yesterday. When they were saying that, they were saying that one of the reasons it would be fairly easy to do is that there’s three spare microphones on the table where the lawyers are. The way that was translated was as three spare chairs. At that point, the gallery knew that was inaccurate and there was a bit of a ruckus made and because of that the translation was ﬁxed. But there were several things like that and I have to say it really concerns me.

TRANSLATION END

Look, I don't want to speak too long because there's a number of us and there’s plenty of us to speak. But I have to say, I headed over with concern, and I came back with a lot more concern for Daniel and for the others. And we visited Daniel in the in the prison on the Tuesday. We had about an hour with him. And I am very concerned about the way that he is being treated. He is 23 hours a day in a cell, one hour outside in a yard. He has one hour of visitation every single month. And it was quite clear as well that there were difficulties in terms of access to any types of activities outside of his cell. We also know that there were the issues with the books. He is holding up very strong, but it is difficult for anybody to be in those type of circumstances.

Then we obviously headed to the to the to the trial on the Wednesday. And I will actually say, and I'll be honest about it, like I was shook coming out of that prison, thinking about the conditions that he was in, there's no question. And I think anybody here who would go visit Daniel would feel the exact same. And that's why I think it's important that we use our voices. Then on the Wednesday, we had the trial itself. And like it's hard to explain unless you see it, but it's a physical glass wall whereby the Ulm5 are unable to speak directly and easily communicate with their lawyers and some of them, and I can't remember which had raised the issue of the fact that they ﬁnd it impossible to hear what's going on in the trial, as well as liaise with their lawyers while they're effectively shouting through a wall to their lawyers or through a microphone.

I was also deeply concerned at the level of translation. My mother's German, so I understood what was happening as part of the trial, but the translations at points were inaccurate, and that is concerning. And so for as an example that I just gave, Zo raised the issue of the fact that there are three microphones at the tables of the lawyers that was translated as three chairs. That's just not, that's inaccurate. And it was because the, the gallery, I suppose, kind of kicked up a bit of a fuss that that was then restated. I think that Duncan makes an excellent point, Stammheim for anybody with any understanding of German history, and it gives you a shock when you hear that word. It is where the Red Army Fraction trials happened. It is also where Red Army Fraction people died, Ulrike Meinhof for example. So it is for anybody in that context, so I have to say it is a very, who understands that context, I think it is particularly concerning. I do want to say that the people around the Ulm5 have been excellent. There's a great support base there. There's a great support base, when we landed in the airport, when we came out of the prison, and indeed at the trials themselves. So I think that is very good.

But I mean, I think absolutely, at the very least, we need to have observers there. This is an Irish citizen on trial and the family, the lawyers are now us, we are saying that we have concerns in the way he is being treated. And so I know these are for Patricia, maybe leave them for questions later I think. Yeah. Yeah. Well you can move over a bit late. Yeah. And I'll speak loudly. Yeah. And I'm taking that Barry just because. Yeah, I'm just taking an order. You were late, Barry. No. Well, actually, we may have made a mistake because it was 12. Sorry. There was a confusion because originally we'd had to change it to 1145. So apologies to Barry.

Patricia Stephenson - Senator - Social Democrats

It's probably relatively unusual, noting that Barry's here to have a cross-party delegation that is both government and opposition. And I think that points to the shared concerns that we have. And this isn't a kind of this is sort of a partisan issue necessarily.

And whether you there will be people who don't agree with the concept of direct action, there will be people who think direct action is necessary. There are lots of people who are very distressed about what's happening in Palestine, as we well know. And lots of people who wish countries, including EU member states, were doing much, much more. So taking aside, you know, how you conceive of the actions of the Ulm5 whether you agree with what they did or what allegedly did or what they allegedly didn't do, human rights and rule of law and democracy are the tenets that we sign up to as EU member states, but also as global citizens, as members of the UN. And we had before we went out, and continue to have even more so, serious concerns about the right of a fair trial. We have serious concerns that Daniel's rights and the rights of the Ulm5 under the European Convention for Human Rights are being undermined as it relates to the right to a fair trial. We have serious concerns about their ability to appeal whatever the trial is, because it isn't being, there is no public record of what's happened.

Now, the right to appeal is kind of fundamental. You know, we would expect that for anyone going through the criminal process. We have seen an inconsistent application of the principles that we as, as a European member state, have signed up to. We've seen that when it comes to international law versus Ukraine and Palestine, we are seeing that when it comes to the idea of human rights, like we are Ireland and Irish Aid, we do fantastic work when it comes to human rights in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia. But we can't always be lecturing to the global South about their human rights record and what they're doing if we're also not practising it ourselves, and if we have concerns that a friend, Germany and EU member state, a friend in the European project is undermining the rights of our citizens, we need to identify that and we need to have dialogue about that.

And that is what we're asking. It's what we've been asking since all of us independently, have been raising it with Helen McEntee and the Department of Foreign Affairs requesting trial observation. The Department of Foreign Affairs have told me that that would be considered interference and that they're not able to do that under the Vienna Convention. However, there's a document called the European Union Human Rights Defenders guidelines. Ireland has signed up to, all the EU member states have signed up to it. And under those guidelines, there's actually recommendation for trial observation that we would go to other parts of the world. We heard about Colombia when I was living in Uganda, an Irish official from the Department of Foreign Affairs conducted a trial observation mission for Human Rights Defender called Nicholas Opiyo. It is something that is done. So this idea that we don't do it because it's an EU member state and we don't do it because it's an ally in Europe, suggests, again, this two tier approach, this idea that we will hold some countries to account for their human rights record, for their standards and rule of law, but we won't hold other countries to account.

What's the point, then? What's the point of having principles? Every country has the ability for slippage. Every country has the ability to, in times of crisis or in times of difficulty, perhaps not do what they would normally do, perhaps not have the same standards for every group of people in every trial, in every case, in every human rights situation. And we have a duty to check that and to hold each other accountable. And that is what I suppose we are requesting the department do when they conduct independent trial observation. In order for them to see what is happening, they have to go be there on the ground and conduct that. There is precedent. There is a role in the EU human rights defender guidelines for them to do that.

We are not asking them to break the rules. We're not asking them to break convention or, or what is already written down and recommended that they've signed up to. We're just asking for consistent application, and we're asking for them to observe whether or not the rights of an Irish citizen are indeed being violated, as we think that they are. No bail, no recording of transcripts, 23 hours of solitary conﬁnement, no note-taking for us. You know, parliamentarians. There is a sense that the handling of this trial is completely disproportionate to what the Ulm5 are allegedly said to have done. We have seen Palestinian activists in large parts of Europe for their actions to be dealt with disproportionately. It is not okay, it's not the norm. And we need the Department of Foreign Affairs to we need them to take action on this. It can't just be the Palestinian activists. It can't just be Daniel's family. It can't just be the lawyers. Human rights experts are saying they're concerned that the European Convention of Human Rights is being violated for these citizens. Are we okay with that? Can we accept that we believe that that that that shouldn't be allowed?

Richard Boyd-Barrett

Thanks, Patricia. Finally, over to Barry Ward. I'll move these. Yeah, yeah.

Barry Ward TD - Fine Gael

Thanks very much. Just give me one second. I suppose I'm in a slightly different position to most people at this table. Not just because I'm the only member of a party that's in government, but I'm also a lawyer, a criminal defence lawyer with 20 years’ experience of visiting people in prison, representing them in criminal trials. And I come at this not with any attempt to condone what happened. And I probably am also somebody who I don't believe the criminal damage constitutes legitimate protest.

I make no judgement to that one way or the other. It's not my place to make a judgement. So what I'm looking at this is not with a view to making any value judgement on what did or didn't happen. Although I do note that there's little enough dispute about the facts of what happened, more about the character of what happened. But the point I make is, irrespective of that, what I am very strong in my mind on is the fundamental rights that we expect people to enjoy in not just European Union, but the Council of Europe countries, the countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. There are basic standards, and obviously Germany has a different legal system to ours and there are differences there, I see that myself from my own practice. The differences there. I don't have any difficulty with those differences, but I do have difficulty with what I saw as being far short of the minimum standards we expect for fair trials. And so, to me, there are two aspects to this. The ﬁrst is the incarceration element. Obviously, the German authorities have decided to pursue this on the basis of particular terrorist legislation. They have to deem people in particular situations to be a different category of case under their law. They are entitled to do that. But I would call into question the objective based on which they have done that. So if you look at, for example, in the same courthouse where we were this week, there was a trial going on in the same building of other people who were also being treated under the same terrorist legislation but who were involved essentially in an armed struggle to take down the German state.

The categorisation of them as being the same as the people who are in the court of the Ulm5 is entirely – they’re, they are incomparable. So those people discharge ﬁrearms in the course of some of their so-called protests, they injured police officers. There was an entirely different character to there. If you want to call a protest, protest. What you're dealing with, with the ﬁve is people who went into a factory caused a signiﬁcant amount of damage. My understanding of their case is that they did so on a legitimate basis. I make no judgement on that. But the important difference is they recorded what happened. Those recordings are available. They waited at the scene until the police arrived, for them part and parcel of their protest is the trial itself and the exposure of these issues before a court, the notion that they are likely to leave Germany in those circumstances is a nonsense. And so I ﬁnd the, the objective nature of a decision not to grant them bail very strange. But even if you accept that the German authorities have, of course, the right to refuse them bail, as long as they do so in accordance with law, I then turn to the conditions in which they are kept.

You've heard the fact that Daniel Tatlow-Devally for example, is kept under a 23 hours solitary conﬁnement regime, something that is not acceptable in my view. He has no opportunity to socialise with people in the prison in real terms. He gets one hour a day in a closed concrete yard with no greenery. The windows in the cell are not transparent glass because he cannot see out of the cell. He cannot see anything other than the strength of the daylight. Essentially, the cell itself is ﬁve meters by two meters. There is not enough room for him to exercise in there. He has occasional and inconsistent access to a gym facility within the prison, which is by all accounts, inadequate. In addition to that, there are different aspects of the prison regime, including paying for food, for example, which I would question. But leaving them all aside, I think he is in a really difficult position because he's in such an oppressive regime and there doesn't appear to be any objective basis for that. And we had an opportunity to visit him on Tuesday. I was very impressed actually with how he's dealing with the situation. I think he's clearly a very strong, intelligent individual and that helps to have a mind that can be active during that time obviously helps him, but he has been there now for the best part of ten months, and that is an extremely difficult position for him to be in. And at the moment, the trial is scheduled to continue until January of next year, so that will continue apparently until then. And I think a) it's without objective basis, but b) it is in contravention of what I would think are minimum standards for the detention of a person in prison on remand.

The second aspect for it then, is the trial. I think one of the most important things in any criminal trial, from a judicial perspective, is that the judge is consistent and appears, at least to be fair, we don't know what's inside judges’ heads, but there must be the outward expression of fairness and equality within the courtroom. What I saw yesterday in Stammheim did not show that. What I saw was, I likened it, speaking to somebody afterwards, to being like a teacher who had lost control of the classroom. And there was no consistency to what we saw in court yesterday. And in fact, you know, the courtroom layout, even I have real issue with the fact that the defendants do not have access to the lawyers in the course of the trial. They cannot communicate privately with them or indeed in real terms, because they are behind there in if you imagine the courtroom is set out into three parts, there is the main court, there is the visitor's gallery, and there is a corridor within which the ﬁve defendants sit with police officers or particular police personnel. In order to speak to their lawyers, who might be two desks away from them inside the court. They have to go to a grill in the glass, get the lawyers attention, and then speak to them through that. So there's no privacy, there's no protection of their conﬁdentiality. And it's extremely difficult for the lawyer to continue to be engaged in the trial and to take instructions from, from the client. It is inconsistent, in my view, particularly where there is no basis for suggesting that there is any propensity to violence with the people who are on trial. There is no demonstrated instance of that. So I don't think there's a basis for it for us. Then in the public gallery, we are behind a massive wall of bulletproof glass.

Notwithstanding that, I was not allowed to bring a ballpoint pen and paper into the court to take notes. I don't know what damage they thought I would be able to do with a ballpoint pen from behind a bulletproof screen. I wasn’t allowed my belt either. Not that it's a weapon of choice or anything like that, but there was a level of security going into the court, which is ﬁne. Everybody needs to ensure that everyone is safe in the courtroom. But then, having gone through extensive airport style security and extensive pat down in a private room, shoes taken off, everything examined, nothing was returned to us. The only document I had going into court was my passport. Now, I don't see the justiﬁcation for that. And it affects the transparency of the trial as well. One of the major issues in terms of the fairness of trial is that there isn't a transcript. There isn't a recording of what's going on in the courtroom. Again, this is a minimum standard because if any party, defence or prosecution chooses either to appeal the result of the trial or any ruling within the trial – I'll come back to that in a second – they have no opportunity to have an independent and veriﬁable record of what was said or what transpired in the court, notwithstanding the fact that all of the audiovisual equipment is there. When a witness gives evidence that's into a microphone, there are translators in the courtroom who hear everything and translate. Although I know that there have been issues in the translation, I don't speak German, so I can't say that I heard that myself. But the witnesses broadcast out to a screen up on the wall in the courtroom. So the facility is there to record something. But a conscious decision has been not to do that. So the record of what happens in court is prepared by a staff member of the judge, the judges.

There are ﬁve judges [including] one presiding judge. And that, I understand, can be changed unilaterally by the presiding judge. And so it is not a reliable or it may not be an accurate record of what's happened, which makes any appeal after the fact very difficult.

And I said, if anybody wants to appeal a ruling, well, we were present yesterday when a number of applications were made by defence parties for things, for example, to be allowed to sit with their lawyers. That ruling was, there was no ruling on that, in fact, at all. She didn't make a decision, or the judges didn't make a decision on that at all. It was just allowed to kind of go into abeyance. And there was another part of the trial when one of the defence lawyers purported to read the wording of an arrest warrant issued in relation to Benjamin Netanyahu by the International Criminal Court, a court to which Germany is a signatory, he sought to read out the bench warrant or sorry the arrest warrant text, which is in English. He was prevented from doing so. The then was a long recess when the judges considered his request to do so, and came back and said they initially said he couldn't do it at all. Then they said he could read it in English only yesterday, but that after that there would be nothing else would be read in English. The judge initially suggested, for example, that he could read it, but it wouldn't form part of the trial, wouldn't be included in the record of the day. This is not withstanding the fact that prior to yesterday it was possible to read things out and have them translated into German. So that's what I talk, when I talk about the consistency issue. There is not a consistency issue within the court, and you can see the frustration of the defence lawyers who are sitting there that they are making these applications.

They get no sense from the bench that there is actually a listening ear for those applications. And in several instances that I witnessed there is simply no ruling at all. The application is made and then it's, it's allowed to lapse. So I would have very serious concerns about the fair trial nature of what's going on. And I come to this as a lawyer with 20 years experience, and that is the reason that I am here. It's not to justify anything or to condone anything or to make any judgement one way or the other. But as an Irish citizen abroad, or any European citizen or any citizen of a country that's part of the Council of Europe, they should be entitled to those basic procedures. And from what I saw, either in the context of the detention or the trial procedures themselves, they were absent. And I think that is a real problem. And like others here, I'll be raising it with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. So and over to for questioning.

Richard Boyd Barrett TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Just two other details actually just throw in just for a mention, that haven't been mentioned. There was a motion put forward by the defence on the issue of the access of the public gallery and parliamentarians to pen and paper. That was also never ruled on. But they made the point, ﬁrst of all, that it was unprecedented in the German legal system for public gallery not to be allowed to have pen and paper to take notes, and that even if the judge wasn't willing to concede on that, would the judge concede that parliamentarians didn't represent a threat to public safety, and on that basis, then to have pen and paper? And she didn't even respond to it. And another little small detail just gives you the. So they put forward an application on removing the glass barrier. There was no ruling glass barrier that is not present in the trial that was mentioned earlier. Yeah. And when we, when the prisoners were brought in through the glass corridor, the guards stood at the end of the glass barrier so that members of the family and friends couldn't even put their hands up against the glass or get in proximity just to sort of show a bit of human communication to, to their loved ones in the corridor to just physically block it. It was just vindictive prevention of even kind of most elementary contact between those in the gallery and those in, in the glass, I think. And points where an application was made by the defence that this architecture was totally unnecessary and unprecedented in the context of this type of case, and there was no response from the judge.

IRISH: Journalist -- Ceist: Inné ar RTÉ RnaG, chuir tú cur síos ar an thriail mar ‘seó-thriail’, cén fáth ar úsáid tú an téarma sin?

Barry Ward TD - Fine Gael

Bhuel an fadhb atá ann ná nuair atá tú ag feachaint ar an méad tá ar súil mar a dúirt mé nóiméad ó shin, caithﬁdh mo mbeadh muinín1 ag gach éinne sa triail go bhfuil an breitheamh nó na breithiúna ann, go bhfuil cothroma2 féine idir an cosantóir agus an ionchúiseamh. Agus, nuair atá tú ag féachaint ar mar sin, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé ann agus ní sílim go bhfuil sé ann toisc nach bhfuil an breitheamh- bhuel an breitheamh- toisc go bhfuil an príomh-breitheamh ag déanamh an caint ar fad. Ní raibh faic raite ag na breithiúna eile. Nínuair atá sise ag labhairt, ní sílim go bhfuil sí ag féachaint ar na h-iarratais a bhí déanta ag na gcosantóiri. Níl siad ag féachaint orthu mar fíor-iarratais go raibh sí chun cinne a dhéanamh taobh nó taobh eile. Níor ghlac sí le haon iarratais amháin ó na chosantóirí nuir a bhí mise ann agus ceapaim nach bhfuil aon cinne déanta uirthí. So, sin an fadhb, má tá siad chun leanúint ar aghaidh leis an trial mar seo, gan a bheith ag féachaint ar na gceisteanna- fíor-cheisteanna atá ann, caithﬁdh tú a rá nach fíor-triail atá ann ach seó-triail mar a deirimear. So, sin an fadhb agus má tá siad chun leanúint orthu mar seo níor féidir le muinín[1] a bheith ag éinne faoin tortha a thiocfaidh amach as an triail.

Ceist: An gceapeann tú go bhfuil an breitheamh claonta?

Freagra: Bhuel, ní féidir liom é sin a rá ach, cé chomh fada is a chonaic mise aon rud sa chúirt, bhí sé deacair a rá go raibh an cothromaíocht[2] sin idir an ionchúiseamh agus na chosantóirí.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Question: Yesterday on RTÉ Raidio na Gaeltachta you described the trial as a ‘show-trial’, why did you use that term? Answer: Well the problem is when you're watching everything that’s going on, as I said a minute ago, everyone involved in the trial has to have trust[1] that the judge or the judges, that there’s a fairness[2] between the defendants and the prosecution. And when you look at it like that, I don’t think that fairness[2] was there, and I think it wasn’t there because the judge isn’t- well the judge because the main judge is doing all the talking. The other judges never said a word. When she’s talking, I don’t think she’s looking at the requests made by the defendants. They’re not looking at them as real requests that they need to make a decision on either way. She didn’t accept a single request from the defendants while I was there and I don’t think she’s made any decisions on them. So that’s the problem, if they’re going to continue with the trial like this without actually looking at the issues - and they’re real issues - you have to say it’s not a real trial at all, it’s a showtrial as we say. That’s the problem, and if they're going to continue like this, no one can have any trust[1] in the results that will come from the trial.

Question: Do you think the judge is biased?

Answer: Well I can’t say that, but as far as I saw anything at the court, it’s difficult to say that fairness[2] is there between the prosecution and the defendants.

[1] ‘Muinín’ trust or conﬁdence: interchangeable in this context [2] ‘Cothromaíocht’ general balance/fairness/impartiality

TRANSLATION END

Barry Ward TD - Fine Gael

What I'm saying is, so it has been described, and I have agreed with this deﬁnition that it is a show trial. And the reason I say that is that as you look at the decisions and the conduct of the presiding judge in court, there are ﬁve judges, the four assistant judges, two of whom are laypeople, do not really involve themselves as far as I can see. The presiding judge makes all the decisions, but there is no impression, as you're looking at what's happening, that she's taking on board applications from the defence in a sincere or genuine or equal way. And so in order for anybody to have conﬁdence that it's a real trial, that it's a trial that is doing what it's supposed to do in terms of assessing the issue, to make a judgment, you'd have to have conﬁdence that she is doing that. We got no show, what we saw, that there was any real balance. And that's why I would conclude that there is a show trial element to it.

Journalist

Can I just ask two other questions. One, apparently in Germany, they forbid they forbid full transcripts and broadcasting or recording, except in very exceptional cases. And that's been an issue where the controversy there for years with that scenario. The other if you could respond to that, the other one is why do you think the Department of Foreign Affairs has refused consistently to send an observer?

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

I mean, does on the on the people may know more detail, but what I can say is that the legal defence teams did say to us that the disallowing of notes being taken, given that there's no transcripts or records, I can't honestly speak about the norm, the norm in regard to that. But what the defence teams made absolutely clear was that the refusal to allow the public to take notes was unprecedented, and secondly, that the general conditions of the trial were extraordinary, given the nature of the charges that this was not normal and in fact it might be worth, they noted that there are 15,000 cases currently underway against pro-Palestine activists in Germany, and the particular severity of the detention regime and the character of the trial in the case of the Ulm5 is out of kilter with how most of those cases have been dealt with. So we're dealing with a quite extraordinary draconian situation is what the defence teams told us.

Patricia Stephenson - Senator - Social Democrats

And I might just answer that question on the department. I mean, so the department have responded to me, and I'm sure they've said to other reps in other capacities that under the Vienna Convention, which outlines diplomatic norms and practices, that they can't interfere in trials in other countries. And I just want to make it clear that certainly our attendance there wasn't interference. There is a, trial observation is a thing. It is a thing that people do. It is a norm. Countries do it all of the time, and they particularly do it when it comes to ICC cases, which I'm sure Barry could attest to and European Court of Human Rights cases, that it is it is something that is habitually done. So that is the rationale they'll give. And we can come up with a list of examples of places where the Department of Foreign Affairs have done trial observation in other countries, but largely in the global South, largely not in European member states. So I would get a sense that there's a desire not to. There's a feeling that we shouldn't be doing that when it comes to our neighbours. We shouldn't be doing that when it comes to our closest allies. But just to reiterate the point that I made previously, like, we have a duty to hold each other accountable as individuals, as states, as states in a collective union, and make sure that we are all practicing what we're preaching and we're all upholding the principles that we've signed up to. So I don't think that just because something is happening in Germany, or if it was in Hungary, or if it was in Uganda, or if it was in Colombia, that we should be behaving differently and that we should be treating, you know, that we should have a tiered response of how we conduct trial observation, that we'll do it in some places, but we won't do it in other places. So I suppose, you know, I've raised the issue and I'm sure we all have, but I've consistently asked about the Human Rights Defender guidelines. I haven't gotten a response in the department on it. Do they think that that's just for the global South, or do they think that there's a role for trial observation in EU member states to and or is it some EU member states that are happy to do trial observation and others that were not? Again, it's about consistent application and we'd like to see that done in this case.

Richard Boyd Barrett TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Anybody else want to comment?

Barry Ward TD - Fine Gael

I just, d’you mind if I just address the transcript issue because I'm aware that it's a subject of controversy in Germany. The two things I'd say, ﬁrst of all, this is an exceptional trial. So in every respect this is described, in fact, one of the witnesses yesterday said it's not a normal trial and, you know, it is an exception if ever there were a basis for it, this is one. But the second thing is not it's not alone that there isn't a transcript, it's that there is a hindrance on objective and independent observers to take notes. And the note that is prepared at the end of the day is prepared by one by the judge's staff only. It is not set for approval by the defence or prosecution or anybody else. And so the point that I'm making is if there is to be an appeal of any aspect of the trial, there is not a reliable or independent note of what actually transpired. And that creates a real difficulty. It doesn't have to be an audio transcript or anything like that, but there is no record in which anybody could rely for an appeal.

Journalist

And to come back to the conditions that Daniel is facing in prison. And what is his mindset in his health, like when you spoke to him? And what does his day kind of look like in prison? And you mentioned that he only has one visitor, I think is it a month? Is that one hour, one hour, one hour of visitation, is that your visit then for the next while?

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

No, it does seem as if they just on that point that the fact that we were parliamentarians, it didn't, wasn't counted against the one visit. So he would still get that one hour of family. So and we weren't sure about that. Actually, it was only conﬁrmed there by Daniel and sorry, I should say I should defer to Conor Devally, who is Daniel's father,

Conor Devally - Daniel’s father

He's allowed two visits each of one half an hour, half an hour visit twice in a month, a calendar month so slightly under over the time, half an hour every two weeks. And of course, getting to somewhere as awkward as Ulm has meant signiﬁcant inroad and time and some expense in trying to achieve that. If it were one hour, it would be perhaps more worthwhile as it were to go. But obviously he's been fortunate. We've been able to go every single time – somebody from the family or a friend, and I'm really grateful to everybody here and others who aren't able to be here today ,for the heft of having, at their own expense, gone and taken this journey. It's really heartening.

And with regard to the transcript issue – and I share a background that Barry has in legal matters – I believe, and I hope I'm right in this, that up to 46 or 7 countries that are members and signed up to the European Court of Human Rights Act, Germany is alone in not having transcripts, and it has been a matter of controversy that even serious trials often are without transcript. However, there is a full discretion in the court in Germany to order there be a transcript. It's not unavailable, it's not illegal. And even the police witnesses are saying that this is a very unusual trial, this is not normal. And the only prosecution response is that the transcript is unnecessary because it's not a historic trial, but a transcript is not there for the purposes of history, of a record for future generations. It's there for the accused to be able to say, this happened. We need somebody to review that by appeal or other process that's now been made unavailable. The judge or judges are in charge of whatever comes out as being what occurred in court. And they call that a protocol, which sounds to me like a summary of what they say the applications of rulings were, but the protocol is not being released.

So on a daily basis, there's no protocol being surveyed by lawyers acting for the accused. So they can't actually raise an issue of saying this protocol is, is deﬁcient in some respect or is missing something. And the judge has expressed that the protocols will come at the end of the trial, but the trial is now going to take a year. Well, something short of a year. How is the defence supposed to have a look back on each of the days when they can't even make notes properly themselves, or have notes made on their behalf? So it is, a show trial is an unfortunate phrase we associated with the Soviet Union and other things, this is a trial that is put on in a showy way, and it is to mark a huge level of, I think, fear among the German people. I don't speak for them. I don't know that anything puncturing their, their investment and atonement by backing Israel, right or wrong, is actually a threatening feeling for them. And that's why I think these ﬁve people have been nominated to be made, look like Hannibal Lecter, and have been punished in advance by their being detained on a premise that doesn't exist.

And I think Barry Ward is right. It's hard to suggest that people who actually wish to bring this to the fore would then run away from their trial, and the only reason that's been put forward for Daniel not getting his bail. And I've read the reason, and it was a bit astonishing, was that he was a ﬂight risk, that he could go back to Ireland and he was receiving letters in English. Therefore, he could go to a lot of English speaking countries and disregard of the fact that he spent seven years in Berlin. He's very invested in the culture of life there, and he does not want to leave. And all of those ﬁve people wanted to go to trial. So there is a show element to the whole matter, and it's a difficulty for Germany, but I think they have to look at themselves a little harder.

Richard Boyd Barrett TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

And just on his, our impressions, and Mairéad and Barry can, can give them. But I mean, I think under very, very difficult, obviously difficult circumstances, Daniel is showing tremendous bravery and stoicism. But he was also visibly upset, for example, and this is the detail, sorry we didn't give earlier on, he was visibly upset with the fact that we weren't allowed discuss with him the case, so we were prohibited from discussing the case. We were able to discuss some of the conditions of his imprisonment, and we talked about books and things like that, but we weren't actually allowed discuss the details of the case. Just quite extraordinary, given that we're parliamentarians visiting to discuss with somebody who's incarcerated this sort of case, and we're not even allowed discuss it. And there was there was a sort of iPad camera with somebody on the other side of it. I don't know exactly who they were. A translator. Yeah, but they were sort of policing it. And then there was a guard. So policing the entire conversation so that we didn't actually discuss the details of the case. And he was very upset and understandably so by, by that. And it is clear it's, it's very harsh. But he's, you know, he's bearing up considering. But I wouldn't like to be in his shoes. Yeah.

Journalist

May I ask just this is a state level trial. It's not a federal trial. So it's the decisions on the prosecution on exactly how Daniel will be held on remand. They're made it a state level in Stuttgart by the Justice or Interior Ministry there. Yeah. So has there been any contact with the state government in Baden-Württemberg there or with your colleagues, the CDU, your EPP colleagues are in charge of the Interior Justice Ministry in Stuttgart. Has there been any contact with that level?

Barry Ward - TD - Fine Gael

I have raised this. I have raised it with a number of different here. So I've raised with a number of different German politicians. I, like others, have raised with the ambassador here. I've raised it with officials, I've raised it with ministers, with members of Bundestag and with local politicians. I have not raised it directly with the government locally, no, but I would certainly be happy to do so.

Mairéad Farrell - TD - Sinn Féin

Do you want to go in..., IRISH: Do you want to go on about faoi Daniel é féin sa phriosúin or…? ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Do you want to go about Daniel himself in the prison or? TRANSLATION END

Barry Ward TD - Fine Gael

Oh, sorry. Yeah. As I say, I've spent a long time visiting people in prisons. I, the impression I had of Daniel was somebody who was very strong, actually, I think probably quite an intellectual person. And as Richard said, we talked a lot about books and book recommendations and things like that. He has had to ﬁght a battle to have access to literature, which in of itself, I think is probably exhausting. And when he described the conditions of the cell in which he kept. The room we were in was perfectly pleasant. It was the family visiting room. It wasn't a screen visit, but there was a prison guard sitting in the room at the end of the table. Essentially, throughout the visit and the way it was monitored by a video camera iPad device at the end of the table as well. But when he described the conditions in which his cell is, for example, he described issues with dampness in the cell. As I said previously, it has a window, but it's an opaque window, so we can't see out the window. It's a small cell, ﬁve by two. There isn't enough space in that within that cell, for example, for him to, to walk any distance or to have exercise. And the greatest difficulty I think he faces is that he is entirely devoid of any opportunity to socialise with anyone, to speak to his family. It's not the case. that he has access by telephone. Conor detailed the fact that there are two half hour slots a month, and he is lucky that he has family, and I think a girlfriend who are committed to taking up those slots. But if you can imagine how isolating it must be to speak to nobody for a 23 hour period, you must toilet within your cell. You must eat within your cell. You get one hour stretch in a again windowless concrete yard outside, which I gather is quite small. And it is not just demoralising, but I think over time it affects your morale, your mental health. One of the things Daniel said was that particularly during the winter, he would end up sleeping quite a lot, and he felt himself slowing down as a result of such a lengthy time in those conditions. Can I just...

Mairéad Farrell - TD - Sinn Féin

I think we need to invest in we don't have to run, yeah, yeah. Look, I mean, I kind of had detailed already how I felt after seeing Daniel in prison, but there one of the things that Richard had alluded to was the issue of food. I mean, obviously we were coming from Ireland. We wanted to see is there anything that we could have brought for him? But the, the food is privatised. It's a private company, a local shop that, or local supermarket chain in Germany that provides that food. And if there's anything additional that he would like, he has to purchase that. He would also need to purchase or rent a fridge for his cell if he wanted to be able to keep food. So there's different difficulties in relation to that. So like it was very clear that they are very difficult conditions to be in. It is not easy to get to Ulm. We arrived in Frankfurt Airport. It was only that we managed to get somebody to pick us up and drive, but it was a three hour, 3.5 hour drive, which was tough going to try and get there. Richard here Richard was a bit worried at times, but we made it due to a friend of ours. So yeah, so none of us thankfully. But we arrived at 13:32 for the 13:30 visit and that is making sure we were trying to get there in time. So it was not an easy place to get to. But I do think that he's doing very well in the circumstances. But at the end of the day, at the moment, you know, he doesn't even know how long he's going to be there and that's difficult to.

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Is there any last questions or do people..?

Journalist

Could I ask quickly if you actually are there any expectations from those in engagement with Daniel's lawyers and other lawyers, are there any expectations on the verdict of the trial would you expect to happen now is it based on multiple years in prison?

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

So I would say they feel certainly talking to them, and I talked to them quite a bit, I think they feel that, you know, the presumption of innocence has gone out the window. That's, that's their feeling. Given the refusal of the judge to entertain almost any of the submissions and applications of the defence team consistently on every single matter, the manner in which the trial has been set up and the ... show trial character of it, they feel as if the decision has already been made as to guilt and therefore fear. And there's up to a ﬁve year prison sentence for the charges that, you know, the things are. Yeah, they wouldn't be optimistic. Let's, let's put it that way. They wouldn't be optimistic.

Duncan Smith TD - Labour Party

That's where the stakes are so high here. And like there's an urgency that we need the minister and the department to act upon here in the ﬁrst instance, get an independent legal observer into that courtroom. That is a very, very modest ask. The stakes are extremely high. These young people are facing ﬁve years in prison. And our sense coming out of this, we're here a collection of politicians you would not see on a podium together very often. You know, we are less than just over 12 hours off the plane. That's just, you know, we want to get this across as urgently, as stridently as possible. We need an independent legal observer in there. We need more attention on this. It's not getting the attention in Germany deliberately so. So we need to provide it here. And we're getting, starting to get German parliamentarians contact us. And we're driving it politically. But we need more attention on it. We need more pressure. We would love a Dáil sitting this week. We would love a Dáil sitting next week. We would love more opportunity to bring this up in the interim. We can only do it through this, through letters and through any avenues we can, and we just want to get as much pressure as possible because the stakes are so very high for these young people.

Patricia Stephenson Senator - Social Democrats

And we will be writing, you know, we are going to be writing to the Minister.

Journalist: Yeah. Sorry. I just one last question. What difference will having an observer make?

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity

Well, I thought and defence said that our presence made some difference in terms of the conduct of things. The conduct was still pretty shocking, I think, for most of us, but that there was some improvement. I mean, the fact that, as Barry said, they said, well, we will allow for today the use of English, but not in the future. 00:55:15:24 It seemed like some sort of deferral to us, but maybe just to answer something about that. Yeah.

Patricia Stephenson - Senator - Social Democrats

Can I just also say before sorry, like, you know, the role of the trial observer is to independently observe the trial, you know, but I mean, like, we would be looking for someone with a legal background who understands the European Convention for Human Rights, who understands the standards that are expected in the provision of both detention and trial, so that they can be making a record of the times in which they feel that that has not been met. So that's kind of like what we'd want to be seeing. And then once that if the report was made from an independent trial observer, then there would be a decision about how to take the ﬁndings of that report forward. With the exception of Barry, we’re not legal experts. And we can only, you know, we can only go and what we saw. But having someone there that has, has that legal expertise, speaks German and can really understand, based on the human rights protections under the CHR what is or is not happening.

Conor Devally

Just one other feature to that, the European Court of Human Rights has actually set a precedent whereby they have accepted a consular official account of court proceedings as something they can take on board as being evidence of what happened in the court, and therefore such an observer could have an impact in the long run of a great effect, as well as showing the court that there are eyes on the preceding. Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity And the other thing to mention is, for the ﬁrst time yesterday, because of our presence, there was MPs from the Bundestag there, which hadn't been the case previously. So even the fact that we went as a cross-party delegation has prompted a bit more of a response from the German political system.

Journalist And do you happen to have their names?

Richard Boyd Barrett - TD - People Before Proﬁt–Solidarity Yeah. Yes. His name is. I'll give it to you after, it’s Marcel Bauer,

Which party?

Die Linke. Yeah. So if there's no more questions, we leave it at that. And thanks, everybody for that. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Go raibh maith agaibh. Feel free to go across and observe the trial.