Woman jailed for blocking ESB access to her land

loremolis

The reports in the news today said that a 65 year old Offaly woman was jailed for contempt of Court.

It was reported that the Judge said that she would not be released until she purged her contempt.

Does that mean she stays in prison until she says "sorry"?

tfitzgerald

Yes she stays until she purges her contempt of court. I think she is right if she does not want something on her land she should not be forced

Finnbar01

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Yes she stays until she purges her contempt of court. I think she is right if she does not want something on her land she should not be forced

So could this go on literally for years?

Finnbar01

Finnbar01 wrote: »

So could this go on literally for years?

Shell to Sea Case in the High Court:

Held by the High Court (Finnegan P), in deciding against ordering further punishment against the contemnors, 1, that, in civil proceedings, committal for contempt was primarily coercive, its object being to ensure that court orders were complied with. However, in cases of serious misconduct, the High Court had jurisdiction to punish the contemnor in order to vindicate the authority of the court.

2. That, if the punishment in such cases was to take the form of imprisonment, that imprisonment should be for a definite term.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H108.html

EDIT: The answer to your question is yes but it most certainly won't.

tfitzgerald

Their is a farmer from Limerick in jail for 7 weeks at the moment for contempt of court

loremolis

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Their is a farmer from Limerick in jail for 7 weeks at the moment for contempt of court

What did he do/not do?

coylemj

loremolis wrote: »

What did he do/not do?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/crime/farmer-sent-back-to-jail-in-bitter-land-dispute-166292.html

tfitzgerald

loremolis wrote: »

What did he do/not do?

sorry for not getting back to you loremolis and thank you coylemj for answering question:)

loremolis

tfitzgerald wrote: »

sorry for not getting back to you loremolis and thank you coylemj for answering question:)

No problem.

In a way the two situations are similar.

The farmer has gone to jail for (apparently) trespassing on someone else's land and the woman has gone to jail for trying to keep the ESB off her land.

Should they receive the same punishment?

Carawaystick

Deleted User wrote: »

Shell to Sea Case in the High Court:

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H108.html

How much are we paying this Finegan fella to not use any commas. My head hurts.

Also the corrib gas field is in an arc less than a km wide exactly 65km off the coast?? Again this is worded badly.


More on the point, the judgement states that Willie Corduff et al are the owners of the lands, yet Shell wanted to enter them. I'd have thought if you're gonna compulsorily acquire something, you'ld own it first.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

How much are we paying this Finegan fella to not use any commas. My head hurts.

It is normal for many legal documents to avoid punctuation other than full stops. That waym the sentances are written in such a way to avoid ambiguity.

Eats, shoots and leaves and all that.

eastwest

There are some suggestions to the effect that Eirgrid have no powers under the act, and therefore that the judge might have exceeded his powers. If so, this woman just needs the services of a good lawyer and she'll be out in five minutes.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

eastwest wrote: »

There are some suggestions to the effect that Eirgrid have no powers under the act, and therefore that the judge might have exceeded his powers. If so, this woman just needs the services of a good lawyer and she'll be out in five minutes.

Here's an interesting one...

Let's say the judge made the wrong call and the ESB had no right to be on her land (let's say this is in legislation that has been overlooked by everyone for some reason), and the judge held that they did have the right and the woman in question refused to let them on the land.
The woman is jailed for contempt of court, and 2 weeks later it is found in the court that the ESB had no right to be on her land.
Can the woman still be held for contempt of court as she has not purged her contempt as she still defied the court and has not apologised, even though the court was mistaken and has overturned the ruling?

eastwest

Apollo Some Wish wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

There are some suggestions to the effect that Eirgrid have no powers under the act, and therefore that the judge might have exceeded his powers. If so, this woman just needs the services of a good lawyer and she'll be out in five minutes.

Here's an interesting one...

Let's say the judge made the wrong call and the ESB had no right to be on her land (let's say this is in legislation that has been overlooked by everyone for some reason), and the judge held that they did have the right and the woman in question refused to let them on the land.
The woman is jailed for contempt of court, and 2 weeks later it is found in the court that the ESB had no right to be on her land.
Can the woman still be held for contempt of court as she has not purged her contempt as she still defied the court and has not apologised, even though the court was mistaken and has overturned the ruling?

Seems that the ESB has a right to be there, but Eirgrid doesn't. If both bodies were cited in the contempt ruling, it would appear that she was jailed on shaky grounds. I'd imagine that an appeal on those grounds would have her out in five minutes, and the contempt issue would be wiped. Might even have a case for wrongful imprisonment.
The fact that she took on a big company like the ESB without legal advice is probably the reason she's in jail.

dermot_sheehan

She's still in contempt even if she violated court orders that shouldn't have been made (and I see no reason why the orders couldn't have been made, both Eirgrid and the esb were named as plaintiff's if you look for the case on [url]http:///highcourtsearch.courts.ie[/url])

She should have appealed those orders rather then disobey them. She could of course appeal the order jailing her to the Supreme Court and try and convince that court she shouldn't have been jailed.

loremolis

eastwest wrote: »

Seems that the ESB has a right to be there, but Eirgrid doesn't. If both bodies were cited in the contempt ruling, it would appear that she was jailed on shaky grounds. I'd imagine that an appeal on those grounds would have her out in five minutes, and the contempt issue would be wiped. Might even have a case for wrongful imprisonment.

If Eirgrid doesn't have a right to be there then how do they have sufficient interest to make a planning application for an electricity line on land that they do not own?

The fact that she took on a big company like the ESB without legal advice is probably the reason she's in jail.

While I have every sympathy for the woman, it is strange that she chose not to engage some legal representation.

Is it one of those cases where the person is so convinced that they in the right that they fail to see the matter clearly.

Having said that I still think that the punishment should fit the crime and in this case a prison sentence of an indefinite length is very harsh for what she did.

loremolis

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

She's still in contempt even if she violated court orders that shouldn't have been made (and I see no reason why the orders couldn't have been made, both Eirgrid and the esb were named as plaintiff's if you look for the case on [URL]http:///highcourtsearch.courts.ie[/URL])

She should have appealed those orders rather then disobey them. She could of course appeal the order jailing her to the Supreme Court and try and convince that court she shouldn't have been jailed.

Would an appeal to the Supreme Court have taken years or weeks?

Victor

loremolis wrote: »

If Eirgrid doesn't have a right to be there then how do they have sufficient interest to make a planning application for an electricity line on land that they do not own?

Eirgrid is part of the ESB. Anyone can apply for planning permission on someone else's land if they have permission to.

Charlie-Bravo

As Victor says, a lot of local authorities have their planning application forms requesting that if the applicant is not the owner, that a letter of consent from the land owner is given. I am not familiar with this particular case - did they get planning for something on someone else's land? I could imagine it's a massive headache to attempt to traverse land in many different owenrships. C'est la vie - I suppose thats why these semi-state guys get paid so well to do their job. :rolleyes:

This thread is an interesting read.

loremolis

Victor wrote: »

Eirgrid is part of the ESB. Anyone can apply for planning permission on someone else's land if they have permission to.

Hate to correct you but Eirgrid is seperate and independent of the ESB.

Eirgrid was set up under the European Communities (Internal Market in Electricity) Regulations, 2000 to manage and develop the Irish Electricity Transmission Network. It has a seperate Chairman and Board of Directors.

They have responsibility for planning and developing the Transmission network, which includes making planning applications for electricity transmission lines.

In situations where the landowner co-operates, I can understand that Eirgrid could receive permission to make the planning application,

If the landowner does not agree to the placing of a line on their land, how does Eirgrid have sufficient interest to make the planning application on lands that they do not own or have any interest in?

Milk & Honey

loremolis wrote: »

If the landowner does not agree to the placing of a line on their land, how does Eirgrid have sufficient interest to make the planning application on lands that they do not own or have any interest in?

Sections 45 & 47 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927.

Charlie-Bravo

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Sections 45 & 47 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927.

Without having the time of reading through statues, is the above legislation applicable to ESB and Eirgrid, or just ESB?

loremolis

Milk & Honey wrote: »

loremolis wrote: »

If the landowner does not agree to the placing of a line on their land, how does Eirgrid have sufficient interest to make the planning application on lands that they do not own or have any interest in?

Sections 45 & 47 of the Electricity Supply Act 1927.

Those sections permit the ESB (or authorised undertaker) to acquire land or rights over land.

However that is a compulsory acquisition process for the ESB which must be approved by the CER.

How does Eirgrid make a planning application on land it does not own?

Even if the powers within those sections were transferred to Eirgrid (I will check that tomorrow) they dont use them in the making of a planning application on private property.

eastwest

Eirgrid has no powers under the Act to enter in lands without the consent of the landowner. ESB does, but they are constituted as two separate companies, something to do with competition in the energy market I think. Eirgrid is not, as is often assumed, a division of ESB -- it is a separate company and doesn't automatically assume the powers of its parent company.
This woman was badly advised, and the protest groups are asleep!

loremolis

eastwest wrote: »

Eirgrid has no powers under the Act to enter in lands without the consent of the landowner. ESB does, but they are constituted as two separate companies, something to do with competition in the energy market I think. Eirgrid is not, as is often assumed, a division of ESB -- it is a separate company and doesn't automatically assume the powers of its parent company.
This woman was badly advised, and the protest groups are asleep!

If they have no powers to enter onto lands( which I agree with BTW), then how can they make a planning application on those lands?

As far as I recall, if an applicant doesn't own the lands they must include a letter from the landowner confirming that they have no objection to the application being made on their lands.

What do Eirgrid do?

Victor

Rather than randomly asking "What gives the authority to ...", how about going and reading the relevant legislation?

eastwest wrote: »

parent company

I think you'll find those two words and the legislation are the important parts.

loremolis

Victor wrote: »

Rather than randomly asking "What gives the authority to ...", how about going and reading the relevant legislation?

I think you'll find those two words and the legislation are the important parts.

I've looked before and couldn't find anything. I thought someone here might know, hence the question.

I'll check again over the weekend and see what I can find.

There isn't a "parent company" relationship between the ESB and Eirgrid, so I can't see the relevance there.

Mayweather

The E.S.B came across our land last year, I need legal advice on the matter can any one recommend some one with experience with the e.s.b

loremolis

loremolis wrote: »

There isn't a "parent company" relationship between the ESB and Eirgrid, so I can't see the relevance there.

They are related Companies in all likelihood given their principal shareholder is the same person.

Mayweather

hey people a contractor for the ESB are trying to rip me off can any one please recommend some one to give me legal advice

Victor

Mayweather wrote: »

hey people a contractor for the ESB are trying to rip me off can any one please recommend some one to give me legal advice

Accountant? Solicitor?