The High Court found Ben Gilroy in contempt for breaching an injunction during a protest at Kennycourt Stud, County Kildare, on 31 August 2013. The court said he had helped organise the protest and was more than an observer. It had not yet decided on a sanction, but said it was considering penalties up to a suspended prison sentence and would hear further submissions first.
The case arose from an order made on 5 March 2012, which restrained the defendant and anyone with notice of it from interfering with joint receivers’ work, obstructing their possession or access, trespassing, or otherwise dealing with the property in breach of an agreement. The receivers sought to have Gilroy committed for contempt over his conduct at the property.
The court considered two questions: whether Gilroy had been served with the endorsed order on 28 August 2013, and whether he breached it on 31 August. Justice Ryan found beyond reasonable doubt that service had taken place. He relied on witness evidence and video showing a security company director handing Gilroy a document and saying he had been served. The judge said Gilroy’s own video and a still image supported that account.
The judge found Gilroy’s presence on the land on 31 August breached the injunction’s prohibition on trespassing. He also found, based on Gilroy’s radio interview and other evidence, that Gilroy had helped organise the attendance of a large crowd to interfere with the receivers’ work. The court concluded beyond reasonable doubt that his conduct breached all the injunctions in the 2012 order.
The judgment described the contempt as flagrant and serious. It said the protest created a tense and dangerous situation, and that a security operative was assaulted and security staff were threatened and harassed. The judge also noted that the situation could have become more violent and credited the Gardaí and security company with responding prudently.
Gilroy denied organising the protest and said he attended as an observer. He disputed proper service and alleged that the plaintiffs’ witnesses had conspired against him. The judge rejected those claims, finding no evidence of a conspiracy and saying Gilroy had not shown a basis for treating the injunction as void. The judgment noted as mitigation that the property sale was completed and that other participants had purged their contempt without further sanction.
The court’s ruling addressed liability only. Justice Ryan said Gilroy would have an opportunity to make submissions on sanction before any penalty was decided. Actual imprisonment was not being considered at that stage; the range under consideration included a suspended sentence.