The Supreme Court has dismissed two appeals arising from proceedings concerning the marriage and welfare of an anonymised minor, upholding both the contempt finding against E.M. and the refusal of costs to S.T.
In a judgment delivered on 29 May 2019, Mr Justice William McKechnie said there was sufficient evidence to support the High Court’s finding that E.M. had breached court orders by facilitating his daughter’s departure to Egypt and failing to assist in securing her return to Ireland. The Court also upheld the finding that he failed to produce her before the High Court as ordered.
The contempt proceedings followed orders made while the Child and Family Agency, formerly the HSE, sought to protect the minor. The High Court had directed in January 2012 that she be produced in court and that steps be taken to secure her return. E.M. acknowledged travelling to Egypt in breach of an order barring him from leaving the State, but disputed involvement in his daughter’s departure and said he could not secure her return.
The Supreme Court considered the evidence circumstantial, but said it pointed strongly to E.M.’s involvement in the family’s departure. It also upheld the trial judge’s assessment that E.M. had significant influence over his daughter and could assist in securing her return. The Court rejected the argument that the relevant orders were too vague to support a contempt finding.
The 12-month prison sentence had been imposed by the High Court in November 2013 and was served in full. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had stayed the committal briefly to give E.M. an opportunity to secure his daughter’s return. It said such a stay can conflate the coercive and punitive aspects of civil contempt, but considered it understandable in the circumstances. The appeal was not moot despite the completed sentence, because a contempt finding could have continuing consequences.
S.T.’s appeal concerned only costs incurred up to the September 2011 declaration that his marriage to the minor was void from the outset. He argued that he had successfully resisted the allegation of a forced marriage and should therefore receive his costs. The Supreme Court said the High Court had not found that the marriage was not forced; it had instead declared it void because the minor lacked capacity to give full and free consent, leaving the question of duress undecided. It found no special reason to interfere with the High Court’s costs discretion.
The Court therefore dismissed both appeals and upheld the respective High Court orders.