The five men jailed for their protests against the proposed pipeline from the Corrib gas field, in Co Mayo, will remain in jail as they have failed to purge their contempt of a court order, the president of the High Court said yesterday.
The men, brothers Philip and Vincent McGrath, Micheál Ó Seighín, Willie Corduff and Brendan Philbin, were jailed for contempt of a court order banning them from blocking Shell E and P Ireland's access to its land.
Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan stressed that the men must purge their contempt before he will hear claims that when Shell sought to jail them last month, it may have been in breach of an undertaking not to carry out certain works linked to the installation of the pipeline near the men's homes.
The five have been in prison for 27 days with no sign of a breakthrough in their dispute with Shell E and P Ireland arising from their concerns about the installation of the high-pressure pipeline at Rossport, Ballina.
The hearing of the men's action against Shell will not now take place before October. The court heard yesterday the outcome of a new pipeline safety review ordered by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey, could determine, to some extent, those proceedings.
The judge also heard that Mr Dempsey had written to Shell's chief executive, Andy Pyle, saying the company had acted outside the terms of ministerial consents on certain works, including the welding of sections of pipeline. Senior counsel Patrick Hanratty, for Shell, said the company had given a letter to the men's solicitors yesterday which, he suggested, provided a basis for the men to purge their contempt.
The letter said Mr Dempsey had announced he would commission a further safety review of the onshore pipeline. At the Minister's request, Shell had agreed not to carry out any more works on the pipeline until that review was completed.
The letter said the protesters' immediate and ongoing safety concerns had been addressed by the High Court by way of a proviso to its April 4th order dealing with the operation of the pipeline, and that concerns regarding works "have now been addressed by the Minister and by Shell".
In those circumstances, the letter said, there appeared to be "no good reason" for the men to remain in prison and invited them to purge their contempt.
It added: "We confirm that, subject to the court being satisfied with whatever assurances your clients may offer to the court, Shell will not object to the discharge of the committal orders."
Senior counsel John Rogers, for four of the five, said that while his clients had only a limited opportunity to consider the letter, they believed, especially because Shell had not conformed with ministerial consents in relation to the work, the letter was "audacious".
He said his clients had argued that certain works were done without ministerial consent and that had turned out to be true. His clients were left in the position that, although it appeared Shell was in breach of an undertaking give to the court last April not to carry out certain works without consents, it had looked for the committal of the men. There was no explanation from Shell and his clients could only respond to what they read in the newspapers. It was inappropriate they be left in that position without some explanation.
Mr Justice Finnegan said he was given an undertaking and would get an explanation in due course. If the men wanted to make any application on matters in which he had a discretion, they must first purge their contempt.
