Three men who were transferred from England to serve their prison sentences in Ireland have each been awarded €2,500 after the High Court found they had been falsely imprisoned under invalid warrants.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that the warrants authorising the men’s detention in Portlaoise Prison were outside the High Court’s jurisdiction because they recorded the English sentences as 28 years’ imprisonment without adapting them to Irish law. The English sentences included a period to be served on licence in the community, which was incompatible with Irish law unless adapted under the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995.
The men had been released in September 2014 after separate proceedings under Article 40 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld that release in 2016, with all seven judges agreeing that the warrants were defective. The damages proceedings were heard in 2022. The State did not call evidence.
The defendants argued that the prison governor was protected because he had acted on court warrants, and that the men’s consent to transfer, waiver or acquiescence barred their claims. They also argued that their conduct warranted no damages or only a minimal award. The judge rejected those defences. He found that the warrants were outside the High Court’s general jurisdiction under the statutory scheme and that the men had consented to a lawful transfer, not to unlawful detention. He did not decide whether the older legal rule protecting officials who act on apparently valid court orders remained good law, because it did not apply to these warrants.
The claims were limited by the Statute of Limitations to unlawful detention from 27 October 2010 until the men’s release on 11 September 2014, just under four years. The judge found the English sentences remained lawful despite the defective Irish warrants. They required at least 18 years and eight months in prison, subject to remission, while the men had spent just over 13 years in custody before their release.
The judge said the length and seriousness of the detention defects warranted compensation, but concluded that the men’s interest in liberty during the claim period was substantially reduced by their unchallenged English sentences. He also considered their evidence about prison conditions and the impact on family life, alongside the benefit they had sought from serving their sentences closer to family. He rejected the State’s argument that their conduct justified no damages, but found that a low award was appropriate. Each man was awarded €2,500 for false imprisonment.