The Court of Appeal has sent an Article 40 detention case involving Patrick Joseph McDonagh back to the High Court, where the Governor of Mountjoy Prison may seek permission to rely on a corrected warrant. The appeal court did not decide whether that warrant was valid or whether it could support detention.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 17 February 2016, concerned Mr McDonagh’s detention after a District Court conviction in his absence for using marked motor fuel. The District Court was understood to have imposed a €3,000 fine, with 90 days’ imprisonment in default. But the committal warrant recorded a €300 fine. The Governor accepted that the original warrant was defective and could not support the detention.
Mr McDonagh was imprisoned in October 2014 after failing to pay the fine, released temporarily, then returned to prison. His solicitor applied for an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, arguing that the warrant’s incorrect penalty made it legally invalid. The High Court ordered his release on 14 November 2014, finding the error fundamental because the warrant linked the incorrect fine to imprisonment in default.
During the High Court proceedings, the District Court amended the order after an application by the Revenue solicitor. The Governor sought to rely on the amended order, but did not formally apply to amend the certificate setting out the grounds for detention. The Court of Appeal held that a detainer seeking to rely on fresh evidence must first seek leave from the High Court to amend or replace that certificate. Such leave may be granted during the proceedings unless it would be unfair or prejudicial, or the application comes too late.
The appeal court allowed the Governor’s appeal and remitted the application to the High Court. It left that court to decide whether to allow the certificate to be amended to include the corrected warrant. If no successful application is made, the release order must stand because the existing certified record is inadequate. If an amendment is allowed, the High Court would still need to consider whether the District Court had jurisdiction to amend the original order. The Court of Appeal expressed no view on that issue, or on Mr McDonagh’s separate argument that his 90-day sentence had expired.