A solicitor for a couple has told the High Court they have “lost everything” after demolition works began on their luxury home, built in Co Meath 20 years ago in what the courts have found was a “wilful breach” of the planning laws.
On Thursday afternoon, Judge Richard Humphreys refused an application by Neil McNelis, solicitor for Michael and Rose Murray, to halt further demolition pending an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), initiated last month, over alleged violations of their rights.
He also refused to stall contempt proceedings by Meath County Council against the couple over what the judge earlier this month found was a breach of their undertaking to provide vacant possession of their home at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, to the council.
An application by Michael, also known as Chris Murray, a plumber who was raised in the Bohermeen area, for permission to build a house on the lands was rejected by the council in June 2006. The couple, who have three children, proceeded to build a house the following year extending to 588 sq m, twice the size of that for which they sought the original permission.
A lengthy battle to retain the house, or a smaller version of it, followed, which included five failed bids for retention permission and unsuccessful court proceedings.
On Thursday, McNelis argued there was no contempt by his clients.
The council, in obtaining a court order for the couple to be brought before the court by gardaí, was seeking to have them “do a walk of shame in front of the media”.
His clients are “extremely frightened” because the contempt matter appeared to have taken on “a criminal dimension”, he said.
There was no basis for finding the Murrays were in breach of their undertakings to provide vacant possession of the property because another High Court order had rendered the undertakings “academic”, he argued.
The court had initially indicated contempt would be dealt with only via a coercive procedure but at a March 16th remote hearing, which he was unable to access, the court appeared to have indicated there was “a criminal dimension”.
Rose Murray had suffered cancer, is in remission and is very anxious, he said. His clients do not know if they are in the realm of coerciveness or otherwise.
His clients have lost their house, they are evicted, their children are evicted, they have lost everything, he said. “They have been punished enough, to have them do the walk of shame in front of the media, is that what the council want?”
The solicitor asked for time to allow his clients engage with the council and for it “to reflect” on the situation and provide assurances the couple would not be “in jeopardy”. The council is required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, he said.
In reply to the judge, he said he did not know where the couple are or their address but understood they are somewhere in Ireland.
He asked the court to be conscious they have been through an “extremely distressing” time and allow them to preserve their privacy and to have him deal with the matter.
He asked that the house be allowed remain in situ. If it was pulled down, it would be a disaster and a damages issue arises over the “irreparable harm” done, he said. He would keep the court informed of the ECHR process in the interim.
Barrister Deirdre Hughes, for the council, argued there was no basis for the court to revisit any of its orders. There was no wrongdoing by the council in this matter or in bringing the contempt proceedings, she said.
The house is currently being demolished, it is not being emptied of contents, she said, and his clients are well aware of that.
The Murrays’ undertaking – dating back to September 2020 – is “very clear”, the property was to be vacated and the couple were to facilitate the demolition, she said. It was only because of the council initiating contempt proceedings that the undertaking was complied with “to some extent”, she said.
Humphreys said McNelis was correct in that the court had begun looking at the contempt matter from a coercive and not a criminal dimension and the court wished to continue with that.
There was evidence before the court previously of a security van burned out, serious criminal threats been made and matters escalating sharply which gave “pause for thought”, he said. However, he would prefer to keep the contempt issue as civil coercive rather than criminal.
While he agreed the right of application to the European court should not be interfered with, the making of a domestic court order should not affect that process. If the European court made any order changing that, and his experienced was that rarely happened, then McNelis should send that on to the court and he would take notice of it.
The judge noted the contempt matter was listed on Monday but indicated he would give more time if necessary if the couple wished to provide sworn statements in response.
As matters stand, the existing orders remain in place, the judge said.