The Supreme Court has refused David Walsh’s application to set aside its February 2019 decision dismissing his appeal over a contempt sentence. It made a limited correction to that judgment, clarified two factual points and affirmed the order for a warrant requiring him to serve the remaining 10 days of his sentence.
The application followed the Court’s February decision, which had dismissed Walsh’s appeal concerning his detention after a Circuit Court contempt finding. The Supreme Court had invited further submissions about the form of its order. Walsh’s solicitors also sought to challenge the judgment, alleging four factual errors and asking the Court to reverse its decision and set aside the Court of Appeal’s order.
The Court said its decisions are constitutionally final and can be reopened only in exceptional circumstances, such as a fundamental failure of justice. It found that the alleged errors did not meet that threshold.
On the first complaint, the Court clarified that Walsh’s earlier written submissions contained a limited acknowledgment that the judge could take regulatory action to remove him for continuing to speak. It said that did not affect the basis of the earlier decision. On a second point, it clarified that the Circuit Court judge had found Walsh in contempt and directed his arrest at the initial stage, but had not yet determined sentence or punishment. The Court said neither matter required the earlier judgment to be amended.
The Court did amend one phrase in the February judgment, replacing “the question of imprisonment was raised” with “the question of sentence was raised”. It said the change improved accuracy but did not alter the substance or outcome of the earlier decision. It declined to make other requested amendments, including one concerning the legal assistance arrangements for Walsh’s appeal.
Turning to the outstanding question of the warrant, the Court said no basis had been established to interfere with the Court of Appeal’s order. It affirmed that order, providing for the warrant’s reissuance so Walsh would serve the remaining 10 days of the 14-day sentence imposed on 31 May 2016. The source states that the Court of Appeal had previously stayed its order for seven days to allow Walsh to purge his contempt.