DEVELOPER THOMAS McFeely was freed from the Bridewell Garda station yesterday evening by order of a five-judge Supreme Court after his lawyers secured a stay on a High Court order jailing him for three months and fining him €1 million.
The committal order was sought by Dublin City Council and made by the president of the High Court over “egregious” contempt of orders and undertakings aimed at completing urgent fire safety works at the Priory Hall apartment complex in Dublin by November 28th.
The committal order was made just after 1pm and Mr McFeely was directed to remain in the court environs until he would be committed to prison at 4pm but he was instead taken to the Bridewell Garda station and locked in a cell.
Frank Crean, for Mr McFeely, asked the Supreme Court at 3.45pm for a stay on the fine and committal orders pending the appeal. Dublin City Council’s lawyer had been informed of the stay application but had said the council was not participating in that matter, the court was told.
Chief Justice Mrs Justice Susan Denham said the court regarded the council’s position as “extraordinary” and would grant the stay and direct the immediate release of Mr McFeely. Arising from confusion among gardaí as to the exact status of Mr McFeely, he was not produced before the Supreme Court until just after 5pm.
His lawyers said he had no complaint about being in the Bridewell up to 4pm. The court, clearly concerned by a number of matters, directed a series of affidavits be filed within a week to explain what happened.
In the High Court earlier, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said, while Mr McFeely had been ordered off the Priory Hall site two weeks ago, the law “should not be seen to sit by limply while those who defy it walk free and those who seek its protection lose hope”.
He was satisfied there was “a most severe breach” by Mr McFeely of orders, and undertakings by the developer, aimed at completing works by November 28th. He fined Mr McFeely €1 million, to be paid by March 1st next year, failing which the court would consider “other measures”. Given the gravity of the case and “unprecedented” level of disrespect shown by Mr McFeely, he also jailed him for three months in Mountjoy Prison and refused a stay on his orders. He was addressing a court packed with many of the 240 Priory Hall residents, evacuated since mid-October on the application of the council. The residents are being housed at a cost of €240,000 weekly to the council.
John O’Donnell SC, for many residents, said a meeting with the council last Monday came to nothing as the council had told them it was proceeding with a Supreme Court appeal against orders requiring it to pay their costs. No proposal of any sort had been made to the residents who don’t know what is to happen to them, he said.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns said the distress and disruption experienced by the residents has “no parallel in this country in recent times”.
A statement of affairs from Mr McFeely – who had told the court he could not pay for another contractor to do the works at Priory Hall – showed he has “substantial assets and even more substantial liabilities” but the court was satisfied he has access to funds.
Mr McFeely was in contempt and not entitled to a “free exit pass” just because the court granted the council’s application to remove him, his Coalport Building Company and 20 workers from the site over failure to adhere to agreed works schedules.
Mr McFeely, the judge said, was aware since 2008 of serious fire safety concerns over Priory Hall, had accepted it was a fire hazard and had been directed to do works since 2009, but repeatedly failed to address matters with the required urgency. It would be “a travesty of justice” were he not to face even the slightest sanction over failures “so egregious”.
While this was civil rather than criminal contempt, and civil committal proceedings were normally brought for a coercive purpose, committal could also be punitive. Public confidence in the judiciary required the courts to police their orders and impose sanctions.
In this case, there was a “very severe breach”, he said.
Earlier, Mr McFeely, through his counsel Martin Hayden SC, denied any wilful disobedience of court orders. Mr McFeely had been engaged in works but was given no opportunity to complete them by November 28th because he and his workers had been ordered off the site, Mr Hayden said.
