The Supreme Court has issued its detailed judgment outlining the reasons behind its dismissal last week of Seán Quinn Junior's appeal against his three-month sentence for contempt of court.
In a four to one majority ruling, the court found there was "ample evidence" before the High Court to make the finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he was party to a $500,000 payment from a Quinn company.
The Supreme Court also ruled the High Court was entitled to conclude the contempt was outrageous.
Mr Quinn Jnr was knowingly engaged in the patently unlawful activity of interfering with the secured assets of the Quinn group of companies for the purpose of defeating IBRC's claim, the court found.
The court said the sentence of three months was "amply justified".
However, the court also found that the imposition of an indefinite sentence on foot of coercive orders could not stand due to procedural defects.
The court found the procedures followed by the bank in relation to other allegations of contempt of court were not properly followed.
A person whose imprisonment is to be sought must be given clear, adequate and fair notice or the order he is alleged to have infringed and this was not done, the court found.
Dissenting judgment
In his dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said he would have allowed the entire appeal by Mr Quinn Jnr.
The judge also criticised the lack of statutory reform in the area of contempt law and said it was 20 years since the Law Reform Commission had urged the need for reform.
It was a very unsatisfactory situation where a person's liberty was at risk, he said.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the difficulties with the High Court order committing Mr Quinn Jnr to prison arose because of a degree of confusion between civil and criminal contempt.
He said Irish law of contempt was amorphous and was extremely difficult for a lay person to understand, principally because the term was used to mean several different things.
Mr Justice Hardiman found the proceedings in the High Court were "a summary criminal trial" and the case against him was "entirely circumstantial".
He said only two specific findings of fact were made in relation to Mr Quinn Jnr - that he travelled to Kiev in August 2011 and that he attended a meeting with the woman to whom the payment was later made.
Mr Justice Hardiman said in the absence of any action by Mr Quinn Jnr, the bank fell back on a more general allegation that he was involved in a conspiracy or involved in an overall strategy.
He said: "It is simply not permissible to bring a citizen before a court with the object of having him locked up on one charge only and then to fall back on the proposition that there is evidence of a more general nature that he was up to no good or involved in an overall strategy..."
The High Court judgment made no attempt to distinguish the evidence against him from the evidence against the others, resulting in "an omnibus finding", the judge said.
This was "wrong, inadmissible and grossly prejudicial to Mr Quinn Junior".
Mr Justice Hardiman also said the "practical approach" taken by the High Court to jail Mr Quinn Jnr to encourage his father to purge his contempt was not a legally recognised basis of a just sentence.
Mr Quinn Jnr was released from custody last Friday when his three-month sentence ended.
He and his father are due back before the High Court next Thursday.
