The High Court next month will hear a test challenge by two anti-water charge protesters over being refused legal aid to defend claims that they breached court orders restraining interference with meter workers.
However, the hearing of contempt proceedings against the two, as well as others, will proceed today after the High Court refused to stay those pending the outcome of the judicial review challenge to the non-availability of legal aid for civil contempt cases.
It is believed that security concerns are behind the reason for the contempt matter to be heard at the Criminal Courts of Justice, rather than the Four Courts. The contempt case will be heard by Mr Justice Paul Gilligan.
In what are regarded as test cases, John Darcy and Anthony Eccles want the High Court to make declarations including that they are entitled to have their legal costs covered by the State in proceedings seeking their attachment, possible committal to prison and/or fines.
Breached orders
The men, along with several other water charge protesters, face claims they breached court orders obtained by GMC Sierra, whose workers have been installing water meters in Dublin city. They both deny the allegations.
Yesterday, amid tight security around the Four Courts, president of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said the protesters' legal aid case raised an important issue. He fixed December 9th for a hearing on that.
However, Mr Justice Kearns refused to stay the hearing of the contempt of court matters listed before Mr Justice Gilligan until the judicial review is determined. He said one judge of the High Court could not make an order against a decision by a fellow High Court judge.
In their judicial review, Mr Darcy and Mr Eccles argue that they are entitled to legal aid in order to defend the attachment and committal proceedings.
Their challenges arose after being informed that 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 who are facing the loss of their liberty in non-criminal proceedings is contrary to the Constitution and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Time to respond
Yesterday, Eileen Barrington SC, for the State, said it needed time to respond to the claims.
Jim O Callaghan SC for GMC Sierra, a respondent to the judicial review action, said the firm intended to proceed with the contempt of court application to ensure workers installing meters were protected. GMC should not be included in the judicial review as it is not a public body and therefore “not amenable to judicial review,” counsel said.
Micheal O Higgins SC, for Mr Eccles, of Edenmore Park, Edenmore, Dublin, said they would contend that GMC should be included in the action. Counsel said that other protesters facing allegations of contempt were in the same situation as Mr Eccles in relation to legal aid.
Proinsias Ó Maolachalain BL for John Darcy, St Donagh's Road, Donaghmede, said his client's action is against Ireland and the Attorney General only.
GMC Sierra Ltd previously secured injunctions preventing anyone who had notice of the order from assaulting, intimidating or interfering with its workers. The company secured an additional order establishing exclusion zones around its work stations.