A claim made by Gemma O’Doherty, alleging bias by a judge, has been dismissed. This was regarding a High Court case about an alleged harassment instance involving Ms O’Doherty. Nonetheless, Mr Justice Conor Dignam stated that though he did not fit the legal criteria for bias requiring his withdrawal, another judge can be appointed to preside further in the case.
This litigation was instigated by Edel Campbell hailing from Kingscourt, Co Cavan, against O’Doherty, also known as The Irish Light, for allegedly using a picture of her deceased son, Diego Gilsenan, without permission. Gilsenan had committed suicide and his photo was allegedly used in an article by The Irish Light attributing unexplained deaths to the Covid-19 vaccine.
O’Doherty however, is counteracting all assertions made by Campbell. O’Doherty had requested Mr Justice Dignam’s withdrawal from the case as part of her defence strategy. He had granted the initial injunction that prevented Campbell from being harassed and was set to hear another plea by Campbell to put O’Doherty behind bars for alleged contempt due to supposed infringement of the injunction.
O’Doherty maintained that the judge would be conflictingly biased as he was associated with the legal squad that stood for the former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan at the Disclosures Tribunal. She was relieved from her role at Independent News and Media, allegedly on Callinan’s orders, and subsequently received an apology from the publication in court.
O’Doherty also contended that a similar incident took place where another judge recused himself from a case against her last September, setting a precedent. She claimed he did this upon revelations of him representing Callinan.
Moreover, she argued that Mr Justice Dignam’s impartiality had faltered as he had referred to her work on German history and World War II during the Campbell case. Subsequently, in a documented ruling on Thursday, Mr Justice Dignam dismissed her accusations as grounds for his withdrawal. He highlighted the fact that the verdict for objective bias depends on whether a knowledgeable person, having a comprehensive understanding of the situation, would reasonably suspect that the concerned party would be denied a fair hearing by an unbiased judge.
Simply the fact that a judge served as a legal representative for an individual during their time as a barrister, does not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal. There must be additional elements at play – elements which the defendant failed to specify, the judge mentioned. He added that Ms O’Doherty was unable to effectively demonstrate a situation in which a level-headed individual, possessing all the necessary information, would reasonably suspect that she wouldn’t be granted an impartial hearing because he had represented Mr Callinan.
Regarding the matter of German history, he agreed that if a judge takes into consideration an utterly irrelevant aspect, that could potentially serve as a basis for establishing an objective case. Nevertheless, it was Ms O’Doherty who integrated German history into her public declarations concerning the demise of Diego Gilsenan, he clarified.
He mentioned that she drew comparisons between the Gilsenan issue and what she referred to as “the fictitious holocaust”, stating that queries concerning “the holocaust fallacy” are discouraged as they could potentially offend the Jewish community. Her description of this scenario was “a direct replication of methods used in the Jewish Communist script.”
The judge affirmed that these aspects were pertinent to his judgement in the Campbell injunction case. If he had erred in this regard, he emphasised that it warranted an appeal, instead of serving as a cause for his removal.