The High Court has ruled that Kenneth Kelly is lawfully detained in Wheatfield Prison while serving a six-year sentence imposed in Wexford in 2024.
Mr Justice David Keane rejected an Article 40 habeas corpus challenge in which Kelly argued that Wexford Circuit Criminal Court never acquired lawful jurisdiction over two firearms charges because of defects in the earlier District Court return for trial.
Kelly had been sent forward from Wexford District Court in April 2024 on four charges. He later pleaded guilty in the Circuit Criminal Court to demanding money with menaces, unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. A charge of threatening to kill or cause serious harm was subsequently withdrawn by way of a nolle prosequi.
On 26 June 2024, Judge James McCourt sentenced him to six years for demanding money with menaces and took the two firearms offences into consideration. Kelly later appealed the severity of that sentence, but the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in November 2025.
His new challenge concerned the firearms charges, which were scheduled offences ordinarily destined for the Special Criminal Court unless the Director of Public Prosecutions directed otherwise. The DPP had issued a written direction allowing trial in the ordinary courts, but that direction was not expressly stated during the District Court hearing and was not recited on the return-for-trial order.
Mr Justice Keane held that express communication would have been best practice but was not essential. The application to send all four charges to Wexford Circuit Criminal Court necessarily implied that the required DPP direction existed, and evidence before the High Court confirmed that it had in fact been issued.
The judge also held that omission of the direction from the face of the return for trial did not invalidate Kelly's detention. Kelly had pleaded guilty, had not raised the issue during the criminal proceedings or appeal, and had identified no exceptional circumstance permitting a fresh post-conviction Article 40 challenge after the process had reached finality.
The court therefore concluded that his detention remained lawful.