The High Court has refused an application for an inquiry into the detention of Martin O’Toole, who is also known as Martin Thomas, in Castlerea Prison.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey ruled on 12 October 2023 that the applicants, Melissa Kelly and Joe Doocey, had not shown an exceptional or fundamental breach of justice that could justify an Article 40 inquiry despite a court order authorising Mr O’Toole’s detention.
The application was limited to whether an inquiry should be ordered. The judge said an inquiry is a remedy for detention that is unlawful in a fundamental way; it is not a substitute for an appeal against a conviction or a way to review ordinary procedural complaints. He said trial and representation complaints would normally be addressed on appeal or, where appropriate, by judicial review.
Mr O’Toole was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court on 2 June 2023 and sentenced on 28 July. The warrant presented to the High Court recorded multiple convictions, including assault causing harm, false imprisonment, aggravated burglary, arson, violent disorder, criminal damage and animal cruelty. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judge said the trial had lasted more than three months.
Ms Kelly’s affidavit alleged disclosure failures, contradictory evidence, problems with legal representation and other flaws in the trial. The judge said her evidence included hearsay and speculation, and that she had not attended significant portions of the trial. Mr O’Toole did not swear an affidavit for this application. The judge said his absence made it difficult to assess matters such as what instructions he gave his lawyers or what occurred during the trial.
The applicants also argued that Mr O’Toole should be released to help with separate plenary proceedings they had brought. The judge said that was not an appropriate purpose for an Article 40 inquiry and concluded that the application amounted to a collateral challenge to the conviction. He found no evidence of a relevant issue that could not be dealt with on appeal.
The court refused the application. It did not order an inquiry into the detention or direct Mr O’Toole’s release. The judgment did not determine the separate plenary proceedings or the truth of the applicants’ allegations about the trial.