The High Court has dismissed Kevin Tracey’s application for judicial review of a District Court order that committed him to Mountjoy Prison for seven days for contempt of court.
In a judgment delivered on 6 March 2008, Mr Justice Brian McGovern refused the relief sought by Tracey. He found that the District Judge had acted within his jurisdiction and had given Tracey an opportunity to address the contempt issue before imposing a sanction. The judgment dismissed the application; it did not revisit the merits of the separate careless-driving prosecution.
The contempt order arose during a District Court appearance on 31 May 2006 at Richmond District Court. Tracey had pleaded not guilty to a charge of careless driving arising from an alleged incident on Park Lane, Chapelizod, on 30 August 2004. The prosecution sought an adjournment and the judge was to set a date for the hearing.
According to the High Court judgment, Tracey tried to make a statement after the judge said he would not receive one while the case was being adjourned. The judge directed that he be removed after he continued speaking. The judgment found that Tracey refused to comply and made remarks that could reasonably be understood as suggesting the judge was corrupt. The judge then called him back and said he was holding him in contempt, asking whether he had anything to say. Tracey answered, “No”. The District Judge imposed a seven-day prison sentence.
Tracey argued that he had been denied a fair hearing and equal treatment, and that the contempt process breached his rights. He also maintained that remarks cited against him were directed at Gardaí, not the judge. The High Court accepted an unofficial transcript as broadly accurate, while cautioning that parts reflected the note-taker’s subjective interpretation. It also considered affidavits, including one from Garda Deirdre Ryan. Tracey did not cross-examine Ryan on her affidavit.
Justice McGovern rejected each ground. He said Tracey had an opportunity to make submissions on the contempt issue, while the underlying prosecution was being adjourned. He found no evidence supporting the claim of unequal treatment and held that the District Judge was entitled to deal summarily with contempt in the face of the court to restore order. The judgment noted that Tracey had not appealed either the contempt finding or the sentence.