The High Court has refused Frank Ward’s latest application for an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution, finding no basis to question his imprisonment.
In a judgment delivered on 23 September 2015, Mr Justice Max Barrett said there was no deficiency on the face of the warrant committing Ward to prison. The judge said that ground therefore provided no foundation for an Article 40 inquiry.
Ward also argued that his prosecution was unconstitutional, apparently because of the exercise of powers by the Attorney General and/or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The court concluded that those claims had no substance in constitutional law or otherwise.
The judge noted that Ward had made a series of applications seeking release. Ward had asked for Hogan J to deal with this application, but the court said Hogan was no longer a High Court judge and the application had been assigned to Barrett instead.
Barrett referred to an earlier, unreported judgment by Stewart J, delivered on 29 July 2015 in a case involving Ward and the same respondents, which considered the form of the warrant. Barrett said he agreed with Stewart J’s views. He also cited a 2014 Supreme Court decision in another application involving Ward, which observed that a meritorious application would be apparent whether expressed in simple or complex language.
The judgment records that Ward was serving concurrent 20-year prison terms arising from convictions on 31 October 2007 for robbery and assault causing serious harm. The terms ran from his arrest in October 2003. The court refused to order the inquiry he sought. The judgment does not specify any further procedural steps.