The High Court ordered that Viorel Rostas’s costs of an application for an inquiry into his detention be taxed if the parties could not agree them. The ruling concerned costs only; the court did not conduct the inquiry or decide whether his detention was unlawful.
Rostas had pleaded guilty to a Road Traffic Act offence on 8 July 2011 and was sentenced to four months in prison. Recognizances were set at €750 in his own bond and €750 from one independent surety to enable an appeal of the sentence. He sought to have the amounts reduced.
The court made orders for his production from Mountjoy Prison on 11 July and twice on 18 July. He was not produced on any of those occasions. Explanations included that his name was missing from a list sent to the prison, uncertainty over his date of birth because two people there had the same name, and a lack of resources.
On the afternoon of 18 July, his legal team sought an Article 40 inquiry, arguing that the repeated failures to produce him had frustrated his bail application and made his continued detention unlawful. The court ordered an inquiry to be returnable the next morning. The following day, the court was told that Rostas had applied for temporary release and had been released the previous evening. No inquiry was required, and the question of costs was left for later submissions.
Evidence from the prison’s Deputy Governor said Rostas applied for temporary release that morning. The application was forwarded to the Irish Prison Service at 12.58pm, approval arrived at 3.36pm, and Rostas was told at 5pm. He was released at 7.40pm. The judgment said his legal team had been unaware of the application when they sought the inquiry. The judge also said Rostas did not become aware that temporary release had been approved until after that application was made.
In deciding costs, the judge adopted an approach from an earlier High Court case: whether it was reasonable for the lawyers to start the inquiry application based on what they knew or ought to have known at the time. The judge found they were justified in doing so. Their bona fide application followed three failures to produce Rostas, which provided prima facie grounds to argue that his continued detention was unlawful. The judge ordered his costs to be taxed in default of agreement.