The High Court ordered Louise Joyce’s release from detention after finding that the committal warrant supporting her custody did not state the offence for which she had been convicted.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2012, Mr Justice Hogan said the only document before the court authorising Joyce’s detention was a warrant committing her to prison for nine months. It recorded that the Circuit Court had heard and determined an appeal from the District Court, but did not identify the offence, referring only to an “above mentioned Criminal case”. There was no separate Circuit Court conviction order.
Joyce had been convicted in the District Court on 4 March 2011. The Circuit Court affirmed the conviction on 9 May 2012. During the hearing, the court was told that the conviction was for an offence under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft Offences) Act 2001, but no further details of the offence were available.
The application was made under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, which provides for an inquiry into the legality of detention. Hogan J first considered whether he could hear it after another High Court judge had refused an earlier application for an inquiry the previous day. He concluded that he had jurisdiction to hear the renewed application, taking account of the fact that an important Supreme Court authority had not been fully presented at the first hearing and that the State did not oppose hearing the case on its merits.
On the substance, Hogan J relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *GE v Governor of Cloverhill Prison*. He said a detention warrant must set out enough information on its face to show the basis for its authority. Because Joyce’s warrant did not state the offence, and no separate conviction order supplied that information, he found it defective and not a sound legal basis for detention. He directed her release because he was not satisfied that she was being detained in accordance with law.
Just before judgment was delivered, counsel for the respondent told the court that a full version of the committal warrant had been prepared overnight. He did not have the document with him. Hogan J said he had to decide the application on the evidence actually before him and proceeded to make the release order.