The High Court ordered the release of a man jailed for two weeks after disrupting a Waterford Circuit Court hearing, finding that the proportionality of his detention had not been demonstrated.
In a judgment delivered on 13 June 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the available transcript did not establish that the Circuit Court judge had explained why removing the man from the courtroom would be insufficient. With the burden on the detainer to justify the detention, the Article 40.4 application succeeded on that ground.
The incident occurred during repossession proceedings on 21 May 2016. The applicant, David Walsh, sought to address the Circuit Court on behalf of his sister, Feana Walsh, who was the defendant in the bank’s possession action and was not present. He relied on a power of attorney. Judge Alice Doyle ruled that it did not give him a right to speak for her. The High Court said that ruling was correct: a power of attorney does not confer a right of audience, which is generally reserved to professional advocates except in exceptional circumstances.
The High Court judgment records that Walsh continued speaking after being warned, was found in contempt and sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment. He declined legal representation and two opportunities to apologise. The High Court found no error in the contempt finding and said the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to commit him. It did not hold that the finding itself was unlawful.
Justice Humphreys distinguished ordinary disruption, such as speaking out of turn, from more serious conduct such as threats, physical aggression, planned protest or offensive and outrageous allegations. In ordinary cases, he said, exclusion from the courtroom, with reasonable force if necessary, may be a more proportionate response than arrest and detention. If a judge chooses arrest in such a case, the judgment said, the judge should state why exclusion would not suffice, unless that is already obvious from the circumstances.
The court also found an apparent error in the committal order, which was addressed to both the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána and the Governor of Cork Prison, although the Circuit Court Rules specified the relevant Garda officer. It did not decide whether that error alone would justify release.
The order struck out the first four named respondents, refused Jerry Beades’ applications to address the High Court and for the judge to recuse himself, and directed Walsh’s release under Article 40.4. The release order addressed the detention; the High Court did not overturn the underlying contempt finding.