The High Court has dismissed an application by David Maloney to stop his criminal trial while he pursued a constitutional challenge to a Garda detention power.
Miss Justice Laffoy ruled on 25 June 2009 that Mr Maloney had not established locus standi to challenge section 30(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 on the grounds he relied on. The court therefore found he had not made out a fair case to be tried on the validity of the provision and dismissed his application for an interlocutory injunction.
Mr Maloney’s substantive proceedings sought declarations that section 30(1), insofar as it permits detention for up to 72 hours on suspicion of possessing information about specified offences, was unconstitutional and incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also challenged the lawfulness of his own detention and sought to prevent the prosecution from using evidence arising from it or relying on inferences from his alleged silence.
The judgment records that Mr Maloney was arrested in January 2008 after Gardaí responded to a report of armed intruders at a residence in Tallaght. Garda Mark Shortt’s account said two men were seen running nearby and a shotgun was later found along their route. After a drug search proved negative, Garda Shortt arrested Mr Maloney under section 30 on suspicion of possessing information relating to a scheduled offence. He was released from that detention the following evening and charged with burglary and firearms offences.
An earlier Article 40 inquiry before O’Neill J. found the detention lawful. That judge concluded that the evidence indicated suspicion that Mr Maloney was involved in the offences, as well as possessing information about them. No appeal was taken within the time allowed, although the High Court was told an application for an extension of time to appeal had been made the day before the injunction hearing.
In the High Court, Mr Maloney argued that section 30 could also permit detention of an innocent bystander who merely possessed relevant information. Laffoy J. held that this hypothetical scenario was not the basis of his own detention, as described in the earlier inquiry, and that he could not rely on the constitutional rights of such a third party to establish standing.
The court dismissed the injunction application on that basis. It did not decide the remaining objections raised by the Director of Public Prosecutions, including whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, whether delay should bar relief, or whether the constitutional challenge was an appropriate matter to hear before the criminal trial. The order concerned the application to restrain the prosecution; the judgment did not determine the criminal charges or the substantive constitutional proceedings.