Appeal allowed to consolidate detention enquiry under Article 40.4.2 Constitution regarding Wheatfield Prison lawfulness.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court struck out improper procedural grounds and allowed the appeal only to consolidate the applicant's detention challenge with a prior case. The applicant argued unlawful transfers to Wheatfield Prison, but the court noted that irregularities in movement do not automatically render subsequent detentions unlawful. Consequently, the court ordered a High Court enquiry strictly limited to the lawfulness of the applicant's current detention.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArticle 40.4.2 of the Constitution; Article 40.2.2 of the Constitution: Where a prisoner challenges the lawfulness of detention, the court may consolidate proceedings and order an enquiry if genuine legal concerns exist, even if prior irregularities do not automatically invalidate subsequent custody.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedFull text
THE SUPREME COURT
1999 No. 282
Murray, J.
Hardiman, J.
Geoghegan, J.
IN THE MATTER OF A RENEWED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4.2. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND 1937
AND IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS
BETWEEN
STIOFAN BREATHNACH
APPLICANT
AND
GARDA COMMISSIONER AND MANAGER OF WHEATFIELD, PLACE OF DETENTION
RESPONDENTS
Record No. 1929 SS of 1999
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Geoghegan delivered the 22nd day of February 2001
In two other judgments being delivered to day I have criticised the Appellant for purporting to join the High Court judge as a
Respondent on the appeal. I do so again in this case and I would strike out the relevant part of the title.
This is another case in which the Appellant is challenging the lawfulness of his detention and is seeking an enquiry under Article
40.2.2. of the Constitution. The complaints are very similar to those contained in Case No 264/1999 in which I have also delivered
judgment. In layman’s terms the Appellant claims that he has been moved from “pillar to post” without lawful authority and that
furthermore there is no lawful authority to place him in Wheatfield. It is important to reiterate what I said in the analogous case. Even
if there were irregularities in relation to his movements during custody there is no evidence before this court to indicate they could
conceivably form the type of grounds that would justify release as suggested in the State (McDonagh) v Frawley [1978] I.R. 131.
Furthermore it is important to emphasise that there are ample statutory powers for moving prisoners from prisons to courts and back
again etc. There are also ample powers in the Minister to transfer prisoners from one prison to another. But most importantly of all if a
prisoner has been moved to another place without authority there is inherent power in the person in whose custody he is at the time
to bring him back to the proper place of custody. No argument can therefore be made that because of one unauthorised journey all
subsequent detentions are unlawful.
However for the reasons which I indicated in Case No. 264/1999 I would be prepared to give the Appellant the benefit of the doubt
and to accept that he may have some genuine legal concern as to whether he is being lawfully detained in Wheatfield Prison. I would
therefore order that this case be consolidated with case 264/1999 and that an enquiry under Article 40.4.2. be conducted by the
High Court as suggested in my judgment in that case. The inquiry should be strictly confined to the lawfulness of the Appellant’s
present detention and with the same procedural directions as are contained in that judgment.
The procedural grounds of appeal must fail having regard to the decision of this court delivered by McGuinness J. in another
application of this Appellant on the question of how prisoner applications should be dealt with. Some other grounds of appeal are
nothing but pure abuse and do not form proper grounds of appeal.
To the limited extent indicated therefore I would allow the appeal.