The High Court ordered the immediate release of Paul Moore from Wheatfield Prison after ruling that the committal warrant for his imprisonment was invalid. The court found that the warrant did not comply with the prescribed form and omitted important details, including the conduct underlying the contempt finding and the court and judge who imposed the sentence.
Moore had been sentenced to 56 days in prison on 19 February 2015 after Gilligan J. found that he breached a High Court order on 8 and 9 December 2014. The order restricted people with knowledge of it from approaching within 20 metres of water meter installation workstations and from obstructing access by the installation company’s vehicles. The committal was described by the respondent’s counsel as partly punitive and partly coercive.
Moore was arrested and taken to Mountjoy Prison on the day of sentencing, then transferred to Wheatfield Prison the next day. On 6 March, Haughton J. ordered an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution into the lawfulness of his detention. The Governor of Wheatfield Prison identified the committal warrant as the basis for detention. No replying affidavit disputed the facts set out for Moore.
Moore’s counsel argued that the warrant’s fixed 56-day term failed to provide for release if he purged his contempt, as required by the rules governing committal orders. The judgment noted that Gilligan J. had indicated imprisoned contemnors could seek to apologise and give an undertaking to obey the order. Moore also challenged the warrant’s omissions, including its failure to specify the contempt, the dates of the offence and conviction, or the sentencing court and judge.
The High Court rejected a separate argument that the warrant’s instruction to Gardaí to report back after executing it justified release. But it held that the missing purge provision and other omissions made the warrant invalid. It said it had jurisdiction to examine the execution of the committal order without reviewing the correctness of Gilligan J.’s decision; no appeal had been brought against the conviction or sentence.
The court directed Moore’s immediate release. It did not overturn the contempt finding or sentence. In a postscript, the judge expressed concern that procedural defects could frustrate substantive justice and suggested Article 40 inquiries should allow correction of the record where appropriate.