AN ANTI-LOCKDOWN protester has launched a legal challenge against a Circuit Court judge over a €200 fine she received for breaking Covid-19 health restrictions in 2021.

Dolores Webster (68), a far-right personality who is also known as Dee Wall, came to prominence during the pandemic when she participated in a series of protests against health measures and laws aimed at enforcing them.

She has sought a judicial review of a fine handed down against her, claiming that the case that led to the fine breached her right to fair procedures under article 40.3 of the Constitution.

On 10 January 2021, as Ireland was placed under the highest level of lockdown and new cases of the virus surged after Christmas, Gardaí said that Webster failed to adhere to Covid restrictions at Bachelor’s Walk in Dublin.

Papers filed in the High Court earlier this year by Webster claim that her right to fair procedure was breached when she was fined €200 over the incident.

In an affidavit filed with the court, Webster said that when she was initially fined by the Circuit Court in February 2024, she did not receive any notification about her case and sought to appeal it.

The appeal was heard last October, when most of the charges against her were struck out due to lack of evidence, and the fine against her was reduced to €200.

However, Webster said she was unable to provide “critical evidence” to challenge the reduced fine because of the four years that had elapsed since she was charged by Gardaí in 2021.

She claims that the decision to fine her represented “an anomaly” because the presiding judge struck out most charges due to the time that had elapsed, but had not done the same in relation to the fine against her.

“The evidence provided [...] was never provided to me and I had no knowledge of and therefore had no way of defending myself,” her affidavit says.

“This hindered my ability to prepare an adequate defence.”

Webster further claimed that she was in Dublin city centre as a “citizen journalist”, exempting her from travel restrictions, but that this was disregarded by the court.

The case was mentioned in the High Court earlier this week, and is listed to return before the court on Monday.