The Supreme Court has set aside a six-month contempt order against Colm Hanrahan over the failure to remove polluting waste from a family farm in County Laois, and remitted the council’s committal application to the High Court for further consideration.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 14 March 2014, concerned an appeal from a High Court order made on 17 September 2013. That order committed Hanrahan to Mountjoy Prison for six months unless he complied with a schedule of remediation works. The Supreme Court held that this conditional fixed term was not a permissible form of coercive order because it blurred the distinction between civil and criminal contempt.
The court did not decide whether Hanrahan should ultimately be imprisoned. It left the High Court to decide on rehearing whether his conduct amounted to serious defiance warranting a fixed term of imprisonment, and, if so, what term. It also said he could not be committed if compliance was impossible, while noting that the burden was on him to establish financial inability.
The underlying order, made in May 2012 under section 58 of the Waste Management Act 1996, required Hanrahan and his parents to stop holding, recovering or disposing of waste on lands registered in Folio 1905, and to remove the waste and remediate the land. The work was due to begin by 9 July 2012 and finish by 1 September. No remediation had taken place by the time of the committal proceedings, although the order’s prohibition on further dumping had been observed.
Laois County Council’s investigation followed an anonymous complaint in April 2011. A consultant’s report described processed municipal waste across part of a former sand and gravel pit, with an average depth of 1.15 metres and an estimated volume of 960 to 1,840 tonnes. The report said the waste could produce polluting leachate and pose a risk to groundwater. The council estimated the remedial work would cost about €312,000.
Hanrahan admitted he knew of the 2012 order and accepted that he was in contempt because no remedial work had been done. He attributed the delay to personal and family difficulties and said he could not meet the disposal cost after learning of a €75-per-tonne levy. He also suggested Greyhound Waste Group was responsible for the dumping, but the judgment said he had produced no evidence supporting that claim.
The Supreme Court said gaps in the evidence about Hanrahan’s finances should be addressed at the rehearing. It also said the High Court should examine the relevance of his mother’s ownership of the farm, since that had influenced the decision below and he had not had notice to respond to it. The original remediation order remained in force; the Supreme Court’s decision set aside the contempt order and returned the committal motion for further consideration.