The Supreme Court agreed that a High Court stay in judicial review proceedings did not prevent the District Court from remanding Michael Farrell, also known as Regan, in custody on 28 June 2012. The judgment was delivered by O’Donnell J. on 10 April 2014 in an appeal concerning an Article 40.4 inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.
Farrell was serving sentences for other offences and was due to be released on 4 July 2012. Separately, he faced road traffic charges and had been remanded from time to time with consent to bail of €300 and an independent surety for the same amount. On 25 June, he sought judicial review in the High Court, in effect seeking legal aid for the road traffic proceedings. The High Court granted leave and stayed the District Court proceedings.
At a District Court hearing on 28 June, Farrell’s representatives argued that the stay meant the court could make no further remand order, even with consent to bail. The District Court judge disagreed and remanded him until 5 July. When Farrell’s other sentences expired on 4 July, he applied for an Article 40 inquiry. He was released from custody the following day after the District Court made no further order.
In October 2012, the High Court held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to make the 28 June order and declared that Farrell had been entitled to release on 4 July. Because he was already out of custody, the High Court could not make an order for his release under Article 40.4. The Governor of Saint Patrick’s Institution appealed, arguing that the case was moot.
O’Donnell J. agreed with the Chief Justice that the appeal should be heard even if technically moot, given the systemic importance of how stays operate. He also considered that it was not moot in a real sense because the High Court declaration and costs orders remained in place and could affect the parties’ rights and obligations.
On the substance, O’Donnell J. agreed that, once it was accepted that the stay was not absolute and allowed some District Court steps, the court could make one further remand order with consent to bail to maintain the status quo. He expressed no view on a separate question raised on the shared assumption that, if the stay barred any District Court order, that court would lack jurisdiction to detain Farrell. The judgment does not state the Supreme Court’s formal order disposing of the appeal.