The High Court has quashed a Wexford District Court order that barred Stephen Tallon from public speaking and recording anywhere in Wexford town, finding that the restriction went beyond the anti-social behaviour established in evidence and unlawfully interfered with his rights.
In a judgment delivered on 31 May 2022, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan also quashed the two convictions for breaching that order. She did not quash Tallon’s separate convictions under sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, and did not decide whether sections 115 and 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 are unconstitutional.
The District Court made the civil order on 31 August 2020 after hearing evidence about Tallon’s preaching in the Bull Ring area. The High Court judgment records five behaviour warnings and evidence from six gardaí and nine civilian witnesses. The reported complaints concerned loud, persistent, aggressive or offensive speech, including preaching described as homophobic and racist.
The order prohibited “public speaking and recording” anywhere within the environs of Wexford town, including North Main Street, the Bull Ring and Selksker Square. Tallon was convicted on 2 November 2020 of two breaches. One charge followed his return to the Bull Ring and public speaking on the day the order was made. The other arose after he was heard singing and referring to Jesus on 7 October. The sentencing record states that he received consecutive four-month prison sentences for the two breaches; the separate public order offences were taken into consideration.
Justice Phelan said the evidence supporting the civil order concerned loud, persistent, aggressive and offensive speech, but the order prohibited all public speaking. She found it was not sufficiently precise to make clear that singing a non-offensive hymn, or other unobjectionable speech, could lead to criminal liability. The order was not tailored to the behaviour found to be anti-social and was disproportionate in its effect on freedom of expression and equality before the law. It therefore exceeded the District Court’s powers under section 115.
The judge also rejected the argument that the judicial review should be dismissed for material non-disclosure, and ruled that procedural issues did not prevent her from deciding the case. She found the separate public order convictions were supported by evidence independent of the alleged breaches of the civil order, and declined to interfere with them.
Because the civil order exceeded the District Court’s jurisdiction, the judge said it was unnecessary to decide the constitutional challenge to sections 115 and 117. Whether those provisions can result in convictions inconsistent with due process remains open for determination in a suitable case.