The Supreme Court allowed the Governor of Arbour Hill Prison’s appeal and refused A.’s application for release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. It held that the declaration invalidating the offence provision in another man’s case did not undo A.’s earlier guilty plea, conviction and sentence.
A. pleaded guilty in June 2004 in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to unlawful carnal knowledge under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. In November that year, he received a three-year prison sentence. He later applied to the High Court for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention, relying on the Supreme Court’s 23 May 2006 declaration in C.C. v Ireland that the section was inconsistent with the Constitution.
The High Court directed A.’s release on 30 May 2006. The Governor appealed. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 2 June and indicated that it would allow it; the judgment explaining the Court’s reasoning was delivered on 10 July 2006.
In the judgment, Mr Justice Hardiman distinguished A.’s case from C.C.’s. C.C. had challenged the law before trial, arguing that it prevented him from relying on an honest and reasonable belief about the complainant’s age. Hardiman J. said A. had admitted knowing the age of the 12-year-old complainant, pleaded guilty and could not have brought the same constitutional challenge on those facts. He was seeking the benefit of a declaration obtained by another person on a right that was not his own.
The Court held that a declaration of inconsistency does not automatically invalidate every completed legal proceeding conducted under the provision. Earlier decisions recognised that, depending on the case, public policy, finality, a person’s conduct and other considerations may require past acts to retain legal effect. Hardiman J. said A.’s conviction followed a guilty plea, and his challenge came well after the trial. He concluded that the established authorities required the conviction and sentence to continue to have effect.
The Court did not decide the State’s alternative arguments about when invalidity takes effect or whether a court can delay the effect of a declaration. It found those issues unnecessary to resolve the appeal. Hardiman J. concluded that A. was detained in accordance with law and concurred in the order allowing the Governor’s appeal. The judgment described the general principle as one of non-retrospective effect for concluded cases, while recognising that exceptional individual cases might arise.