College lecturer Mr Denis Riordan was freed by the Supreme Court yesterday having spent seven days in prison because he refused to withdraw claims that three judges of the court were "corrupt".
Mr Riordan did not withdraw his remarks or apologise to the court. At yesterday's hearing, he said: "I have been imprisoned because I won't apologise to the court. The fact that I can be denied my liberty because somebody regards me as not apologising is another judicial disgrace."
Mr Riordan's case over costs of a previous unsuccessful challenge by him to the referendum on the Belfast Agreement, yesterday came again before the same three judges, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Hardiman.
The court last week had adjourned to yesterday his application for a stay on an order for costs made against him.
Mr Riordan wants his application heard by a five-judge Supreme Court, not one consisting of three judges. It was during the October 5th hearing that he made the remarks which led to his jailing. Yesterday, the application was again before the court. The Chief Justice said the court considered that the submissions made gave rise to some issues of general importance and the court would reserve its decision. Because of the way the matter had proceeded in court yesterday, it would be appropriate now to discharge Mr Riordan from custody and the court would do so, he said.
Mr Riordan (55), of Clonconane, Redgate, lectures in the Limerick Institute of Technology. He has taken several high-profile actions against the State.
His application was the last to be heard by the court during its morning sitting. The Chief Justice said Mr Riordan had been in custody for a week because of his previous conduct. The court was embarking on yesterday's hearing in the expectation there would be no repeat of that conduct.
Mr Riordan said he was seeking a "properly constituted Supreme Court" to hear his application. He said there was no order of the Supreme Court preventing him having access to that court but the court had affirmed a High Court order requiring him to seek its permission to commence proceedings in that court.