A Dublin truck driver is facing sentencing on Friday after a jury convicted him of incitement to hatred following a 30-minute Instagram livestream. Graham Carey, 42, of Dunsink Drive, Finglas, made the recording on January 30, 2023, during which he told listeners that refugees were in the country to “rape our people.” According to testimony presented at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, the livestream occurred amidst local disquiet sparked by misinformation regarding an alleged sexual assault.
Misinformation and the Finglas Livestream Context
The legal proceedings stem from a 30-minute livestream broadcast by Carey on January 30, 2023. According to Det Insp Gavin Ross, who spoke at Thursday’s sentence hearing before prosecuting counsel Diarmaid Collins, the recording followed an allegation by a local woman that she had been sexually assaulted by a refugee. This claim triggered days of anti-migrant protests in the Finglas area of north Dublin, even after subsequent police investigations determined the incident did not involve refugees or individuals from another country.
During the broadcast, Carey called on listeners to gather at Finglas Garda station. According to court evidence, he told his audience that the Government was “rewarding evil” by allowing what he termed “rape-ugees” into the country. He further stated that if gardaí did not leave the station, he would not be “responsible for what happened in the Garda station.” Later in the recording, he said that anyone who refused to leave the island would “die on the island” and that their corpses would be thrown into the sea.
Did You Know?
The charges against Graham Carey were brought under the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of €10,000 or two years’ imprisonment upon conviction.
Trial Evidence, Arrest, and Courtroom Proceedings
Following the livestream, Carey was arrested and charged with using words that were threatening, abusive, or insulting and intended to or likely to stir up hatred, as well as distributing a recording likely to stir up hatred. He pleaded not guilty to both offences. During the trial, Carey asserted he was in Northern Ireland when he recorded the video, but the prosecution countered this by presenting evidence that he was driving an articulated lorry within the jurisdiction.
Footage shown during the trial depicted a crowd of roughly two hundred people being led by Carey into Finglas Garda station. Counsel noted that, once inside, Carey could be seen attempting to calm individuals down. Representing himself during the proceedings, Carey engaged in sharp exchanges with Det Insp Ross on Thursday, accusing him of failing to do his job and claiming he was “a political prisoner” who had been “treated like a terrorist in your care.” Ross denied these claims, stating Carey was detained under anti-terrorist legislation and treated the same as any other person in detention.
Expert Insight
Sentencing Expectations and Next Steps
Judge Patricia Ryan adjourned the finalisation of the case to Friday morning and remanded Carey on continuing bail. During Thursday’s hearing, Carey indicated he had a number of handwritten testimonials he wished to submit for the court’s consideration during sentencing. Judge Ryan also had to repeatedly ask a group of about 30 supporters present in the courtroom to respect the formality of the proceedings and refrain from shouting or cheering.
Depending on the judge’s assessment, Carey could face up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to €10,000, or a combination of both penalties permitted under the 1989 legislation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific charges did Graham Carey face?
Carey was charged with using words that were threatening, abusive or insulting and intended to or likely to stir up hatred, and with distributing a recording of images or sound likely to stir up hatred under the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act.
How did the investigation start?
The investigation and subsequent protests began after a local woman alleged she had been sexually assaulted, though subsequent police inquiries established that the incident did not involve refugees or people from another country.
What maximum penalty applies to these offences?
The offences carry a maximum penalty of a fine of €10,000 or two years’ imprisonment.
What factors should courts prioritize when balancing freedom of expression claims against laws prohibiting the incitement of hatred?
Related reading