A father of four who was jailed two weeks ago for contempt of orders made in family law proceedings brought by the man's wife in the Circuit Court was freed on certain conditions by the High Court yesterday.
The man was freed on entering into his own bond of €1,000 and on condition he speedily pursue, via High Court judicial review, his challenge to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to make orders affecting him in family law proceedings.
The man had claimed that, because he had declined to participate in the judicial separation proceedings initiated by his wife and had not entered an appearance in them, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to make orders relating to custody of his children, payment of maintenance or access.
The court was told he was jailed after refusing to obey those orders and stating he would continue to disobey them. He contends a marriage cannot be both soluble and indissoluble and the Circuit Court is not entitled to make orders in family law proceedings which he has declined to involve himself in.
While freeing the man yesterday afternoon, Mr Justice Michael Hanna said the man had decided to go about his case by "the scenic route" - via a challenge to the legality of his detention brought under Article 40 of the Constitution - and had "only himself to blame for the pickle he was in".
The judge said he had no doubt the Circuit Court judge who made the order committing the man to prison and other disputed orders in the family law proceedings, had acted with the utmost good faith and the utmost propriety.
The man was seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to make those orders, the judge said. The appropriate way to do that was via an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings.
In defending the man's detention, and the actions of the Circuit Court judge, Lisa Dempsey, counsel for the Governor of Limerick Prison, had referred to several well established legal authorities on civil contempt but those decisions did not address the fundamental question of jurisdiction, the judge said.
It may be the man has a point in challenging the Circuit Court's jurisdiction to act as it had, the judge added. However, that was not for him to decide in these Article 40 proceedings.
Mr Justice Hanna stressed the conditional release was not to be treated as a tactic to delay matters. He was taking the man, who believed he had a bona-fide case, at face value.
