The Supreme Court agreed with the order proposed by another judge in Kevin Tracey’s appeal over a seven-day contempt sentence imposed in the District Court in 2006. Justice William McKechnie said he had serious reservations about Mr Tracey’s conduct, but could not be sure the appropriate level of fair procedures had been afforded to him.
The judgment, delivered on 25 February 2019, concerned events during a brief appearance before District Judge Aeneas McCarthy at Richmond Street District Court in Dublin on 31 May 2006. Mr Tracey was there in connection with a pending road traffic charge, listed only to fix a hearing date.
According to the judgment, Mr Tracey sought to read a statement about alleged abuse and victimisation by a neighbour. The judge refused, explaining that the case was listed for mention only. Mr Tracey also objected and made remarks about court summonses and the prosecution. When he began commenting about gardaí, the judge directed a court guard to remove him.
The judgment records that Mr Tracey shouted, “You’ll be hearing about this Judge” and made remarks calling someone “crooked”. Mr Tracey later maintained that the latter remarks were directed at prosecuting garda Garda Ryan, who was helping remove him, rather than at the judge. Justice McKechnie said he had grave reservations about that explanation and Mr Tracey’s purpose in attending court, but said he could not make a conclusive determination.
The judge brought Mr Tracey back before the bench, told him he was finding him guilty of contempt and asked if he had anything to say. Mr Tracey said he did not. He was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment. A warrant issued that day, and he was detained.
A High Court judge refused an application for an Article 40 inquiry into the detention but granted leave to seek judicial review and allowed Mr Tracey out on bail while that case proceeded. The High Court dismissed the judicial review in 2008, after which Mr Tracey served the balance of his sentence. In 2017, the Supreme Court granted an extension of time for him to appeal the High Court decision, without conclusively deciding a constitutional question about the route and threshold for the appeal.
Justice McKechnie said the timing of the District Court judge’s statement that he was finding Mr Tracey guilty left him unable to be sure fair procedures had been followed. He therefore agreed, “with the utmost misgivings”, with the order proposed by Justice O’Donnell. The judgment does not set out that order’s terms.