Walsh v The Minister for Justice and Equality and ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,Dunne J.
• Judgment Date: 26 May 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 53
• Date: 26 May 2017

[2017] IESCDET 53

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Dunne J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION

BETWEEN

DAVID WALSH

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS THE COURTS SERVICE JUDGE ALICE DOYLE

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF CORK PRISON

RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

Result: The Court granted leave to the applicant to appeal to this Court from the High Court on the 5th day of May, 2017 and in this Determination specifies the issue on which leave is granted.

Reasons Given:

1 This determination relates to events at Waterford Circuit Court on the 31st of May 2016, where the applicant, David Walsh, attended court and sought to make representation on behalf of his sister who was not present, but who was a party to the proceedings. He was informed by the Circuit Court judge that this was not possible, but he persisted and ultimately he was warned by the judge that he could be found in contempt of court. Mr Walsh continued to interrupt the proceedings. Eventually the Circuit Court judge offered him legal aid, so as to obtain a lawyer to represent him in respect of a contention that he was in contempt of court. Mr Walsh also refused that offer. Eventually the judge found him to be in contempt of court. He refused to apologise, and the court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of two weeks.

2 On the 2nd of June 2016, an application was to the High Court for an inquiry into his detention pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution, and it appears he was admitted to bail. On the 13th of June 2016, the High Court (Humphrey's J) held that while the appellant had been in contempt and there was no question of personal affront to the judge, and therefore the judge was entitled to deal with the matter, nevertheless, the sentence of imprisonment was disproportionate, and accordingly he directed the applicant's release.

3 The decision was appealed and on the 23rd of March 2017, the Court of Appeal (Birmingham, Mahon and Edwards JJ) reversed the decision of the High Court and directed that the applicant be taken into custody to serve the unexpired balance of the term with a stay of seven days to permit the applicant to apply to the Circuit Court judge to purge his contempt. The applicant has not done so, but rather applied for leave to appeal to this Court.

4 The applicant sets out some 23...