The High Court has refused all relief sought by William Fitzgerald in a judicial review of Circuit Court proceedings held on 11 March 2010, including convictions for offences under the Public Order Act 1994.
In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2019, Mr Justice Twomey said Fitzgerald had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the Circuit Court had committed him to jail for contempt. The court had granted him leave to challenge any decision to commit him for contempt and the orders convicting him of Public Order Act offences.
Fitzgerald, who was not represented in the High Court, said the word “contempt” had been used when he was removed from the courtroom and that he was then held at a Garda station for about an hour. The judge said the evidence did not establish that Fitzgerald had been convicted of contempt or sentenced. On the evidence before him, Fitzgerald had been removed because the Circuit Court judge considered his behaviour disruptive. Whether that assessment was correct was outside the scope of the judicial review. The judgment noted that a judge is authorised by law to remove someone from a courtroom.
The court also rejected Fitzgerald’s claim that the Circuit Court had denied him natural and constitutional justice by failing to secure witnesses. A summons he produced for Superintendent Maher was dated 26 November 2009, when the case was first listed, but the hearing was adjourned and there was no evidence Maher had been summonsed for the March 2010 hearing. Fitzgerald said his companion, Donal Daly, was unavailable until later that day, but the judgment found no evidence he had sought an adjournment for Daly to give evidence or a bench warrant to secure Maher’s attendance.
The judge cited Fitzgerald’s sworn statement that he later understood he should have sought an adjournment and a bench warrant. Judicial review, the court said, was not intended to remedy an applicant’s own acts or omissions, and it was not the Circuit Court’s role to manage his case by making those requests for him.
The High Court also refused to admit unofficial audio recordings made by a companion during the Circuit Court hearing because there was no evidence the court had permitted recording. It said the proposed transcript was not a true transcript, as it included narrative summary rather than direct transcription.
The judgment said any unlawful detention could be addressed through an application under Article 40 of the Constitution. The court concluded by refusing all relief sought.