The Supreme Court has refused to set aside its judgment upholding a finding of contempt of court against a man arising from interventions made by him in possession proceedings concerning his sister.
The court’s decision on Friday means David Walsh could go to jail for 10 days for contempt, but his counsel Giollaíosa Ó Lideadha SC indicated an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is under consideration.
The Supreme Court has adjourned to next week the issue of any stay on the committal of Mr Walsh and the making of final orders. The committal order arose from a hearing at Waterford Circuit Court on May 31st 2016 which, among a list of cases, dealt with possession proceedings concerning Mr Walsh’s sister Feana.
Due to Mr Walsh’s behaviour and constant interruptions, an order was made to jail him for two weeks for contempt. He was freed two days later by the High Court but the Court of Appeal in March 2017 reversed that High Court ruling. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear a further appeal by Mr Walsh which it dismissed last February.
On Friday, the five-judge court unanimously rejected arguments by Mr Walsh that its unanimous February judgment contained errors such that it must be set aside.
It said Article 34.5 of the Constitution provides that a decision of the Supreme Court “shall in all cases be final and conclusive” and that finality obligation is not just binding on the court but also on all citizens.
“All decisions are final, whether good or bad, whether widely noticed or quietly ignored, whether criticised or praised.”
While the court has exceptionally recognised a jurisdiction to set aside judgments, including for fraud, the contention that a judgment is wrong, whether by reference to law or fact, will not suffice, it said. The jurisdiction to set aside a Supreme Court judgment arises in very exceptional circumstances and the issues raised by Mr Walsh did not establish such circumstances, it said. Some of the matters in the judgment of which Mr Walsh complained, including relating to whether he was offered legal aid, were comment rather than a decision or determination by the court, it said.
Having refused to set aside its judgment, the court said it was necessary to consider what order should be made. It said it was “notable” Mr Walsh had not set out any personal circumstances in mitigation, either by way of explaining his conduct, or in suggesting any circumstances that would mean the punishment was inappropriate or would be too severe.
While some time has passed since the May 2016 committal order, that was because of proceedings taken by Mr Walsh which had failed in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, it said. The court could not see any basis for interfering with the operation of the Court of Appeal judgment in this case, it said.
It indicated it was prepared to direct that the committal warrant be reissued so that Mr Walsh will serve the remaining 10 days of the sentence imposed on him on May 31st, 2016 but it has adjourned any such order to next week when it will hear Mr Walsh’s application for a stay.