Woman facing return to prison over refusal to hand over her home to bank

A High Court judge has ruled a woman was lawfully jailed for contempt of a court order requiring her hand over possession of her home to a bank.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys told Claire Knowles she may remain on bail until 7pm on Wednesday after which time she will return to Limerick Prison unless she has purged her contempt of the possession order in the interim.

Ms Knowles was jailed by a judge at Cork Circuit Court on December 8th for contempt of a court order of January 2014 requiring she hand over possession of her home near Glanmire, Co Cork, to Bank of Ireland.

She was freed on conditional bail on December 10th pending the outcome of the inquiry, under Article 40 of the Constitution, into the legality of her detention.

Giving his decision on Tuesday having heard arguments by Ms Knowles and the State, Mr Justice Humphreys said he was bound by other court decisions concerning Article 40 inquiries and, in all the circumstances, must rule the detention is lawful.

He will give a written judgment outlining his reasons for that decision at a later stage.

The contempt application was brought by solicitors representing Bank of Ireland arising from a mortgage taken out with ICS Building Society on Ms Knowles home at The Pines, Castlejayne Woods, Glanmire, Co Cork.

An order for possession of that property was made by the Circuit Court in January 2014 and the High Court dismissed an appeal against that order in July 2014. Ms Knowles later got an order from the Master of the High Court extending the time effectively for a second appeal.

Attachment and committal proceedings were brought last October against Ms Knowles for contempt over her failure to hand over possession and were adjourned to December 8th when Cork Circuit Court directed her detention in Limerick Prison.

Ms Knowles was freed on conditional bail on December 10th pending the outcome of the High Court inquiry, initiated the previous day under Article 40 of the Constitution, into the lawfulness of her detention.

In his decision today, Mr Justice Humphreys commended Ms Knowles for the manner in which she presented her case but said his hands were tied by various rulings which meant he could not direct her release.

Among arguments advanced by her to support her claim that her detention was invalid, she argued there was an error in the title of the committal warrant in that it was in the name of ICS when it was lawyers representing BOI who sought her committal. She also argued she was wrongly refused an adjournment of the contempt application so as to allow her try and get legal representation.

Remy Farrell SC, for the governor of Limerick Prison, argued the net issue in the Article 40 inquiry was if Ms Knowles was denied an opportunity of getting legal representation, and it was his case she was not.

The transcript of proceedings in the Circuit Court showed Ms Knowles chose to proceed without legal representation after clearly considering matters over the lunch break on December 8th, he said. The Circuit Court judge had made the jailing order after Ms Knowles refused to give an undertaking to leave her home and she was “manifestly in contempt”, counsel said.

On that date, the transcript of the hearing referred to counsel for the bank saying Ms Knowles was still in the house and she was in “flagrant” breach of the order.

The Circuit Court judge warned Ms Knowles she was at strong risk of going to jail, should get legal advice and the case would not be adjourned unless she undertook to abide by the court order to leave the house.

It was “very clear” what she had to do and legal advice would not have altered that. It seemed clear Ms Knowles later decided to represent herself as she was entitled to do but she must take the consequences of that.

The Circuit Court judge had said he did not believe she was serious about getting out of the house, he would jail her and refuse a stay, given the “brazen” contempt.

In her arguments, Ms Knowles said she is being “turned into a criminal out of civil litigation” and these are “not ordinary times”.

She said the banks had had months to get their paperwork in order in her case but had failed to do so until much later and then used the name of a “non-entity” in these proceedings. Lawyers for the bank were unable to answer her when she had raised points about the delay in amending the title of the case, she added.

She also said she had been refused legal aid for the Circuit Court proceedings as she did not know how to get it and was given an hour to do so.

“I was given no choice,” she said.