The Supreme Court has granted William Fitzgerald leave to seek judicial review of an alleged contempt detention and two Public Order Act convictions arising from a 2010 Circuit Court hearing. The court did not decide the merits of those challenges.
In a judgment delivered on 6 April 2017, O’Donnell J. considered an ex parte appeal from a High Court refusal of leave. The appeal concerned the Circuit Court judge’s decision on 11 March 2010 to affirm convictions arising from events in Clonakilty on 25 November 2007. The Supreme Court said the account before it was partial and based on Fitzgerald’s allegations and papers.
Fitzgerald alleged that after intervening in a street assault, he questioned gardaí who had taken a bottle from his companion. He was arrested and held overnight. He later received summonses alleging offences under the Public Order Act 1994. The District Court convicted him of public intoxication and failing to comply with a direction to leave; fines of €100 and €500 were imposed, with imprisonment in default. The Circuit Court preferred the gardaí’s evidence, affirmed the convictions and allowed 180 days to pay the fines.
Fitzgerald also alleged that an exchange at the Circuit Court hearing led the judge to find him in contempt and order his detention. The judgment said no formal order recording any contempt finding or detention had been produced, and it was unclear whether a finding had been made. The court considered that allegation arguable because, on Fitzgerald’s account, he received no warning or opportunity to contest the charge before being detained and returned to court in handcuffs.
The Supreme Court rejected or dismissed several other proposed grounds as unsupported, out of time or misconceived. These included claims concerning an earlier, separate matter, recording public proceedings, intoxication testing, Garda interview recording and the effect of an appeal on a stay.
It granted leave to seek judicial review on two matters: any decision to commit Fitzgerald for contempt on 11 March 2010, and the Circuit Court orders that day affirming the Public Order Act convictions. The permitted grounds concern whether fair procedures were followed in the contempt matter and whether Fitzgerald had a fair opportunity to secure a witness or whether the court determined that another witness had been summonsed. These were leave-stage decisions only; the Supreme Court made no finding that the convictions or any contempt decision were invalid. It noted that Fitzgerald risked a costs award if he pursued the claim and failed.