A construction company has taken High Court proceedings against Circuit Court Judge Patrick Moran and the DPP for alleged contempt of a High Court order in comments made by Judge Moran in court earlier this weekabout the company.
Judge Moran said on Tuesday that he wants the DPP to investigate elements of evidence given to him on behalf of O'Flynn Construction Company Ltd after it pleaded guilty on February 20th last to breaches of health and safety legislation.
The company was fined €200,000 for those breaches.
A nine-year-old boy, Stephen Long, died on the company's site at Clarke's Hill, Rochestown, Cork, in February 2001 after a barrel full of wood preservative exploded.
The company claims the case was disposed of by Judge Moran on February 20th last and that Judge Moran had no jurisdiction to deal with it further.
Last Monday, the High Court granted leave to the company to seek orders, in judicial review proceedings, restraining Judge Moran from re-entering the case.
In the High Court yesterday, Mr Peter Finlay SC, for the company, applied for leave to serve a motion for attachment and committal of Judge Moran arising from remarks he made.
Counsel said that the death of Stephen Long on the company's site was a tragedy for all concerned, including his clients.
Judge Moran had said last Friday that he had seen TV reports that gave rise to concerns about what the company had told him in mitigation.
This related to the location of a barrel.
Judge Moran had said he was listing the matter for mention last Monday and that a director of the company, Mr Michael Kelleher, could turn up if he wished.
Mr Finlay said that his clients went to the High Court on Monday and secured leave to seek orders, in judicial review proceedings, prohibiting Judge Moran from re-entering the matter, and the High Court had returned the matter to March 10th.
Notwithstanding the High Court order, when the case was called on Tuesday, Judge Moran had made comments.
Mr Justice McKechnie said that he would reduce the time for the motion to be served to allow it to be heard this afternoon.
In doing so, the judge stressed, he was not expressing any view on whether there was a contempt of court.
