Let’s just go through the mechanics of this ludicrous episode.
|An artist paints a picture.||No law broken.|
|He takes it to an art gallery where he leaves it, free of charge.||No law broken.|
|The painting is an unflattering portrait of a politician.||No law broken.|
|The gallery discovers the unauthorised painting and removes it quickly.||No law broken.|
|The national broadcaster reports the incident.||No law broken.|
|The politician takes offence at the news report.|
|The politician’s press officer demands an apology from the national broadcaster.||Abuse of position.|
|The national broadcaster removes the news clip from its website and offers an apology for reporting the news item.||Abuse of trust by broadcaster. Abdication of journalistic integrity.|
|Politician contacts police commissioner and demands an investigation.||Abuse of office by politician.|
|Police commissioner diverts valuable policing assets from fighting crime to investigating prank.||Misuse of resources by police commissioner.
Interference in politics.
|Police visit commercial radio station and demand copies of emails from the artist.||Attempted breach of Data Protection Act by police.|
|Station refuses.||No law broken.|
|Police tell station head that the “powers that be” want action taken.||Intimidation.Possible abuse of power by police.|
|Artist voluntarily contacts police.|
|Police confiscate other unrelated paintings from artist’s home.||Theft of property by police. Intimidation.|
|Police prepare file for director of public prosecutions.||Intimidation.
Abuse of police power.
Abuse of due process.
Waste of police time.
Waste of DPP resources.
So tell me. On balance, who is guilty of an offence?
All Bock posts here: Cowen Nude
Eoin O’Dell provides a legal analysis HERE