The High Court refused a habeas corpus application brought by three convicted prisoners at Midlands Prison, finding no evidence that any of them was unlawfully detained.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 14 June 2012. The first applicant, Stephen Walsh, made the application on behalf of himself and Roger Ryan and Dermot Byrne. They sought declarations that prison and State authorities had denied indigent prisoners equal access to justice.
The judge said Walsh’s complaint about proceedings under bill number CC 0091/98 was vague and gave no reason to question the legality of his detention after conviction following a trial. He said an issue over transcripts for a pending appeal could not, by itself, invalidate detention. A possible ground might arise if transcripts were withheld to frustrate an appeal, but the judgment said transcripts were routinely provided to prisoners who decided to appeal.
The application also challenged prison decisions and access to court. Walsh complained that the prison supplied only ordinary-sized envelopes, despite the volume of documents he wanted to send, and that he had to pay a solicitor between €30 and €50 to swear an affidavit. The judge rejected the envelope complaint as having no bearing on constitutional rights. He noted that Walsh had made the application unsworn and that habeas corpus could, where appropriate, bypass procedural formalities.
The judgment described an informal process for prisoners to write to the High Court Central Office with complaints, which could be investigated and ruled on in open court. It said that process was an additional route to the courts and did not remove the possibility of judicial review or a separate habeas corpus application. The judge also said courts should not routinely review day-to-day prison decisions that reasonably relate to prison management and are not arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unreasonable.
A further claim, apparently made for Byrne, alleged wrongful conviction for what the application called the “purported murder of Bernard Smyth” and referred to new facts that might support a review by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The judgment said no particulars had been supplied. It held that habeas corpus could not bypass the ordinary appeal process, which allows the prosecution to investigate alleged new facts and present countervailing material.
The court made no order for release. Its stated basis was that there was nothing in evidence to suggest unlawful custody.