The Supreme Court quashed an order committing Kevin Tracey to seven days in prison for contempt, finding that he was entitled to a separate hearing before punishment could be imposed. The court said the District Court judge had authority to remove him from the courtroom to maintain order, but the procedure changed when the judge brought him back and sentenced him.
The case arose from a District Court appearance on 31 May 2006, when Tracey faced a charge of driving without due care and attention. The matter was listed to fix a hearing date after he indicated that he would plead not guilty. Tracey sought to make a statement and referred to what he described as years of abuse and false summonses. The Supreme Court judgment said he had no entitlement to use that hearing to make statements unrelated to the immediate issue.
The judge ordered Tracey removed. As he was being escorted out, Tracey made comments including, “How crooked!” The judgment said the account offered by Tracey suggested that this remark was directed at the prosecuting garda, while the preceding comments had been directed to the judge. The Supreme Court said it did not need to resolve whom the remark targeted.
The judge then ordered Tracey brought back, found him in contempt and imposed seven days’ imprisonment. Tracey was detained that night, appeared in the High Court the next day, and was released on bail pending judicial review. The High Court dismissed that challenge in 2008, and Tracey served the balance of the sentence. The Supreme Court later allowed an extension of time for his appeal.
The appeal was confined to whether the way the contempt finding was made breached Tracey’s rights under the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights or European Union law. The court explained that a judge may remove a disruptive person to preserve order, but a contempt charge carrying possible imprisonment or a fine requires a separate hearing, an opportunity to obtain legal representation, and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
O’Donnell J. concluded that the removal itself was within the judge’s discretion. But once the judge brought Tracey back to impose punishment, a separate hearing and an opportunity to obtain legal assistance were required. The Supreme Court therefore granted certiorari quashing the 31 May 2006 committal order, despite the sentence having already been served.