The High Court will rule early next year on applications by anti-water charges protesters aimed at getting legal aid for proceedings where they are accused of breaching orders not to interfere with the installation of water meters.
In what are regarded as test cases, John Darcy and Anthony Eccles want declarations they are entitled to have their legal costs covered by the State in proceedings seeking their attachment, possible committal to prison and or fine.
The men, along with several other anti-water charge protesters, are accused of breaching court orders obtained by GMC Sierra, whose workers have been installing water meters in Dublin.
The men deny the allegations, which are the subject of proceedings adjourned before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan.
The men’s legal aid actions arose because the Legal Aid (Custody Issues) Scheme is not available to persons allegedly in contempt of court orders.
They claim the State’s failure to provide legal aid for persons without means facing the loss of their liberty in non-criminal proceedings is contrary to the Constitution and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Having heard closing submissions, Mr Justice Paul McDermott reserved his decision to January.
Oisin Quinn SC, for the State, urged the court to dismiss the cases. The men's proceedings were "premature" and they should have applied to have their legal costs covered under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme, he said.
Micheal O’Higgins SC, for Mr Eccles, Edenmore Park, Coolock, said the State’s argument was “superficial” especially as it was admitted legal aid did not cover all situations before the courts. Had his clients applied under that scheme “we might have got lucky”, counsel said.
Feichin McDonagh SC, for John Darcy, St Donagh’s Road, Coolock said the State’s argument was “fanciful” and the contempt proceedings were clearly “criminal in nature.”
The orders the two men were alleged to have breached were obtained earlier this year by GMC Sierra Ltd. That company previously secured injunctions preventing a number of individuals or anyone with notice of the order assaulting, intimidating or interfering with GMC’s workers.
The company secured an additional order establishing 20 metre exclusions zones around its work stations after alleging escalation of allegedly unlawful activity by protesters. The protesters deny the claims and say they have been engaged in a lawful and peaceful protest.