A farmer has avoided being jailed for being in contempt of court after he gave a sworn undertaking to stay off disputed lands.
James Carey gave the undertaking before Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan at Tuesday’s sitting of the High Court.
Last December the High Court made an order restraining Mr Carey, Preston Hill, Stamullen, Co Meath, from trespassing on nearby lands which housing development company Alcove Ireland Eight Ltd claims it lawfully acquired in 2017.
The injunction was sought after Alcove claimed that Mr Carey was attempting to use the lands as a runway or landing strip for light aircraft.
Mr Carey denies any wrong doing and claims the property in question belongs to him and has been farmed by his family since the 1950s.
At the High Court on Tuesday Alcove, represented by Eoghan Cole BL, said that Mr Carey had breached the terms of the orders on several occasions.
The most serious of which occurred on May 12th last when it is alleged that Mr Carey had threatened and then driven an SUV at one of his client’s representatives after they encountered each other on the property.
Mr Cole said his client’s agent had to jump out of the way after Mr Carey drove at him. Mr Carey also threatened the other man and put him in fear that he would be assaulted, counsel said.
Mr Carey had also left chickens on the land, erected a chicken coup, attempted to lease the lands to another party, placed mobile home on, and had erected a gate on the lands, counsel.
Counsel said while Alcove did not want Mr Carey jailed it was seeking to have the orders complied with.
Representing himself Mr Carey denied any wrongdoing, and claimed that he was the victim of the plaintiff’s wrongdoing, and that his mental health had suffered.
He claimed the lands belonged to him and had been in his family since his “granny moved there in the 1950s at the request of his late uncle former FG minister Paddy Lindsay” and had made that part of east Co Meath “the place it is today.”
He claims that the lands should never had ended up in the hands of the plaintiffs, and said a complaint has been made to the gardaí.
Chickens
In the course of his submissions, he expressed concerns about complying with the orders due to the welfare of his animals, particularly his chickens.
While the plaintiffs had undertaken to look after his chickens, he questioned if they were being fed properly.
He added that his concerns recently became heightened after he heard them “calling out”. He initially feared that a fox had got into the chicken coup, but thankfully that proved not to be the case.
Noting his reluctance to comply with a court order the judge told Mr Carey that he was “in a lot more trouble than the chickens are.”
After the Judge said she had no option other than imprison him if he was not prepared to obey the court order made by Judge Reynolds, Mr Carey agreed he would comply.
He told the court he was doing so “with reluctance.”
The judge after hearing Mr Carey’s undertaking told him that he should try and seek legal advice in his efforts to obtain documentation he claims exists to support his claim of ownership over the disputed lands.
The issue of who owns the lands was something that the courts will ultimately decide at a full hearing of the action the judge said.
Noting his difficulties in obtaining documents from various state bodies, the judge agreed to Mr Carey’s request for time to prepare his case, and adjourned the action for six months.
The judge said while some of his claims were “extraordinary” he should be given time to make his case.
The judge, however refused Mr Carey’s request for an order compelling various State bodies to furnish him with the documents he claims he needs.
The judge said as an independent judge she could not advise, or act on his behalf “at all at all.”
After Mr Carey gave the undertaking the judge also extended another injunction sought by companies related to Alcove against Mr Carey.
Those orders prevent Mr Carey from trespassing or attending on other nearby lands. Mr Carey also claims those other lands belong to him.
The judge, who warned Mr Carey that he could again face the prospect of being jailed for contempt if that second injunction was breached, said he should also seek put documentation before the court to support his claim of ownership of that property,
The matter will return before the court in six months’ time.