The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a High Court order that directed David Walsh’s release from prison, ruling that a two-week sentence imposed for contempt of court was reasonable, proportionate and lawful.
The appeal concerned part of a High Court judgment delivered on 13 June 2016. The High Court had accepted that Walsh was in contempt but found imprisonment disproportionate and ordered his release under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 23 March 2017, allowed the appeal brought by the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Courts Service, Judge Alice Doyle and the Governor of Cork Prison.
The contempt arose during repossession proceedings at Waterford Circuit Court on 31 May 2016. Bank of Ireland Mortgages was the plaintiff and Feana Walsh, David Walsh’s sister, was the defendant. She was not represented by a lawyer and did not appear in person. David Walsh sought permission to address the court on her behalf. Judge Doyle refused, and he repeatedly challenged the ruling, including by arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. The judge found him in contempt, ordered his arrest and removal, and later sentenced him to two weeks in prison.
Walsh declined an offer of a solicitor under the Legal Aid Scheme and an opportunity to apologise. Mahon said the judge had wide discretion to decide how to respond to contempt, including whether exclusion from court was sufficient or a more serious penalty was needed. He disagreed with the High Court’s description of Walsh’s conduct as merely “speaking out of turn”, while accepting it was relatively mild in gravity.
The appeal judgment also noted that unidentified people had repeatedly disrupted the courtroom and created an intimidating atmosphere. Mahon accepted Walsh’s assurance that he was unconnected with those individuals and said his actions were motivated by concern for his sister’s interests. He concluded that, in the circumstances, the presiding judge could reasonably decide that removal alone would not be enough to restore order and allow the court to continue its work.
The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the High Court’s release order by allowing the appeal. It did not address the warrant’s validity: the High Court judge had expressed a view that the warrant contained an error but had not considered that issue necessary, and the appeal court said no issue about the warrant arose for its consideration.