The Supreme Court dismissed David Walsh’s appeal against a contempt finding arising from disorder during a court sitting on 31 May 2016. Justice William M. McKechnie, in a judgment delivered on 25 February 2019, agreed with the order proposed by Justice O’Donnell and with what should follow from it. The judgment excerpt does not set out the full terms of that order.
The case concerned events before Judge Alice Doyle, where Ms Walsh was seeking relief in proceedings involving debt judgments and enforcement of securities. McKechnie J. said Walsh had repeatedly insisted on representing his sister, although he had previously been told he had no right to do so. He described Walsh as part of wider disorder in court and said Walsh was an agitating centre of it for at least some period. The judge’s account was that Doyle retired twice to allow matters to cool, offered Walsh legal aid and an opportunity to apologise, and that he declined the aid and treated the apology offer with derision.
Those are McKechnie J.’s assessments of the courtroom events. He criticised the High Court judge’s factual assessment as seriously mischaracterising and understating what had occurred. He said the incident involved multiple people and that a written account could not fully recreate the conditions Doyle faced. He considered the contempt finding justified in the circumstances and said Walsh’s conduct was not an ordinary, minor instance of contempt.
The judgment also addressed the legal framework for contempt committed in the face of a court. McKechnie J. maintained that Irish courts retain summary powers to respond to contempt, while stressing the need for procedural fairness. He disagreed with aspects of the majority judgment, including its proposed changes to the existing approach. He favoured flexibility for the judge managing the courtroom and warned against rigid procedural steps.
The source is McKechnie J.’s judgment only; it refers to O’Donnell J.’s majority judgment but does not reproduce it. The Supreme Court’s operative outcome, as stated by McKechnie J., was dismissal of the appeal. The excerpt does not specify any further order or its terms.