The High Court ordered the release of a man held on remand after finding that prison authorities had not justified repeatedly failing to produce him before Dundalk District Court, including by video link.
In a judgment delivered on 27 May 2021, Ms Justice Siobhán Stack found the detention unlawful and directed the man’s release before the latest remand period expired. The inquiry was brought under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, which allows the High Court to examine the lawfulness of detention.
The man had pleaded guilty to criminal damage on 18 May and was remanded overnight for sentencing while the prosecution obtained directions on summary disposal. The District Court then made repeated orders for his production. He was not produced on 19, 20 or 24 May, and was again absent on 26 May.
Cloverhill Prison said he had reported loss of taste and was placed in an isolation unit, Block F, under Covid-19 protocols. Prison evidence was that prisoners in that unit were not produced to court by video link. The prison considered video link but said there were concerns about moving equipment into the unit or taking isolated prisoners elsewhere. A mobile video link unit was being investigated by the time of the inquiry, but its feasibility had not been established.
The court said the prison had not shown that providing video link facilities was impossible. It noted that this option had not been considered until after the High Court proceedings began. The judge decided the case on the applicant’s argument that the prison had failed to show its restrictions impaired his rights as little as possible; she did not need to decide whether the 2020 legislation independently required production by video link in every case.
The court also considered the latest remand warrant. Evidence from the applicant’s solicitor, which the respondent did not challenge, was that the District Judge had expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation for the failure to produce him, then remanded him again. The High Court held that the remand could not stand if the District Judge was not satisfied that the statutory test for further remand had been met. It found that the repeated non-production breached the man’s constitutional rights of access to court and liberty, and that this was an exceptional case in which the High Court could look behind the warrant.
The judgment said the man might have been able to seek release pending an appeal after sentencing, but he was not sentenced because he had not been brought before the District Court. The High Court’s order was limited to release following the Article 40 inquiry; it did not quash the District Court warrants or make wider orders about prison procedures.