The Supreme Court dismissed David Walsh’s appeal over his conviction for contempt of court, finding that fair procedures had been followed. It called for further submissions on the form of the order, including the question of whether he should serve any further time in prison.
The appeal concerned events at a Circuit Court hearing in Waterford on 31 May 2016. The hearing was about Bank of Ireland’s mortgage proceedings against Mr Walsh’s sister, Feana Walsh. She did not attend, and Mr Walsh repeatedly sought to address the court on her behalf. The Supreme Court said he had no entitlement to represent her.
According to the judgment, Mr Walsh continued interrupting after the judge rejected his arguments about representation and the court’s jurisdiction. He was warned that continued interruptions could result in contempt findings. The judge found him in contempt, directed his removal, and later sentenced him to two weeks in prison after offering legal assistance and asking whether he wished to say anything or apologise. Mr Walsh declined a solicitor and maintained that he had done nothing wrong.
A High Court inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution ordered his release, finding that imprisonment was disproportionate in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, reinstated the sentence with credit for time already served, and stayed the order for seven days to allow Mr Walsh to purge his contempt. It later directed that a warrant issue. The Supreme Court appeal was limited to whether fair procedures preceded the contempt finding; it was not an appeal on the sentence’s severity.
Justice O’Donnell said the Circuit Court had repeatedly explained the behaviour at issue, warned Mr Walsh, and offered legal assistance. He concluded that the initial removal from the courtroom did not require the same procedures as a hearing to impose punishment, and that the later contempt proceedings were fair overall. The court also held that the sentence was not so disproportionate as to make the detention unlawful under Article 40.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal. However, Justice O’Donnell said the Court of Appeal’s order provided a possible route to resolve whether Mr Walsh would need to serve further time, depending on his attitude. Because the High Court’s release order had been appealed through the courts, the Supreme Court sought submissions on the powers available to an appellate court before settling the form of its order.