The Court of Appeal has rejected three appeals by a man identified as Mr C against orders arising from social media videos and commentary about his mother, who had been made a Ward of Court. The court said there was no basis to set aside the orders.
The appeals concerned a High Court injunction dated 20 March 2017, an attachment order dated 25 April directing Gardaí to arrest Mr C and bring him before the court, and a 3 May order holding him in contempt and awarding costs against him.
The dispute began in 2016 when Mr C sought an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution, alleging that the HSE was unlawfully detaining his elderly mother in hospital in the south of Ireland. The High Court found she was not unlawfully detained. After a medical examination and a separate inquiry, she was admitted to wardship on 19 August 2016. The Court of Appeal said the appeals before it did not concern that wardship decision, which Mr C had not appealed.
The General Solicitor became concerned about material Mr C posted online, including secretly recorded videos of his mother and treating personnel. The General Solicitor alleged the recordings and accompanying commentary invaded the privacy and dignity of his mother and those caring for her. The High Court granted an injunction prohibiting publication. When the material was not removed, enforcement proceedings followed and Mr C was brought before the court to answer the contempt allegation.
Mr C undertook to comply with the orders and remove the material. The High Court did not imprison him, but warned him about the consequences of repeating the conduct and awarded costs against him.
The Court of Appeal held that the General Solicitor was entitled and obliged to seek the publication ban, and that enforcement proceedings could not be criticised after the material remained online. It clarified that Mr C’s compliance under threat of enforcement did not prevent him appealing; the appeals failed because they had no basis. Complaints about how Gardaí executed the warrant could be pursued separately. The court made no comment on the merits or availability of challenges to the earlier Article 40 and wardship matters.