A High Court judge has lifted an order made earlier yesterday for the jailing of a barrister for contempt of court orders which required him to meet obligations under a contract of July 2005 for the €1.3 million sale of a central Dublin property.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly had ordered the imprisonment of Patrick Russell yesterday morning after finding Mr Russell had "thumbed his nose" at his contractual obligations and orders of the court. Mr Russell, of Steelstown, Rathcoole, Co Dublin, was escorted from court by a garda after the judge directed he be detained in Mountjoy jail until he purged his contempt.
However, at about 3.45pm yesterday, the judge lifted the committal order after Mr Russell outlined details of arrangements with the Irish Nationwide Building Society under which he hopes to secure by Friday next funds of about €1.65 million.
He said he would use those to meet in full his obligations arising from a contract of July 2005 under which he agreed to purchase Unit 7, Inns Court, Dublin, from accountant Paul Behan for €1.3 million.
If those funds were not secured, Mr Russell said he accepted he was "duty bound" to hand over the keys of the premises, forfeit a deposit of €130,000 which he had paid, and be liable for the remainder of the sums owed and any damages due from the loss of contract.
He also confirmed an apology made earlier in his affidavit and said he had the "utmost regard" for Mr Justice Kelly and the court. The judge said it seemed his order committing Mr Russell to prison had "produced a result", even if it was not the ideal one as Mr Behan would not get immediate relief. However, there was now a realistic prospect of Mr Behan getting what he was entitled to within a short period. There would be little point in continuing the custody of Mr Russell as he would be required to complete documents.
Mr Russell now appeared to be facing up to his obligations and had reiterated an apology to the court. The judge said he had regarded Mr Russell's earlier apology as of less significance because it was not proffered voluntarily at an earlier stage and was made after the prompting of the court. The judge stressed that this was "not the end of the matter". He would stand the proceedings over to July 31st.
