Judgment: 2012-08-13 · Court archive

High Court refuses inquiry into Midlands Prisoner's detention

The court held that the prisoner's complaint about restricted in-person access to court could not justify an Article 40 inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.

The High Court · [2012] IEHC 586

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Joseph O’Reilly (Applicant)
  • Michael Peart (Judge)
What

The court held that the prisoner's complaint about restricted in-person access to court could not justify an Article 40 inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Midlands Prison
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 12 July 2012

    In a decision delivered in open court on 13 August 2012, Mr Justice Michael Peart said O’Reilly was serving a life sentence for murder. The judgment records that he had filed and served an application on 12 July 2012 seeking to have his conviction quashed under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993. He was pursuing legal aid and dealing with that application without a solicitor.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

O’Reilly argued that his detention was unlawful because, as an unrepresented prisoner, he had more restricted access to the courts than other citizens. He complained that he could not attend court personally and had to proceed by correspondence. He also said he was unable to pay court fees.

The High Court refused an application by Joseph O’Reilly for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention at the Midlands Prison, ruling that his complaint about restricted access to court had no possibility of success as a ground for release.

In a decision delivered in open court on 13 August 2012, Mr Justice Michael Peart said O’Reilly was serving a life sentence for murder. The judgment records that he had filed and served an application on 12 July 2012 seeking to have his conviction quashed under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993. He was pursuing legal aid and dealing with that application without a solicitor.

O’Reilly argued that his detention was unlawful because, as an unrepresented prisoner, he had more restricted access to the courts than other citizens. He complained that he could not attend court personally and had to proceed by correspondence. He also said he was unable to pay court fees.

The judge said imprisonment necessarily limits some freedoms, including the ability to walk into court or attend the Central Office to file papers. But he rejected the claim that this meant access to justice was denied. A prisoner could apply to court by post, and a judge would first assess whether the stated grounds for release were reasonably capable of success. If a ground had prima facie weight and was arguable, the court could direct an inquiry, at which the prisoner and the prison governor could attend.

Justice Peart said the procedure balanced the implications of imprisonment with the constitutional requirement that restrictions on a prisoner's rights go no further than necessary for their status. He also said legal aid was a matter for the legislature and noted O’Reilly had applied for assistance.

The court found the ground advanced in this application was “unstateable” and could not justify directing an inquiry. It therefore refused the application for an inquiry. The decision addressed whether an inquiry should be directed; it did not determine the separate application to quash the murder conviction.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review