The High Court has refused an Article 40 application by Sean Christopher Hennelly challenging his detention in Mountjoy Prison under a committal order issued in September 2021. Mr Justice Barr ruled on 18 November 2021 that the detention was in accordance with law for the purposes of the application.
The detention followed a 2019 finding by Quinn J. that Mr Hennelly was in contempt of an order requiring him to give the liquidators of two companies possession of property in Co Galway, along with keys, access devices and security codes. The 2019 order directed that he be detained until he purged the contempt by complying. A committal order issued in December 2019 was not executed or renewed. A further order was issued by the High Court Central Office on 16 September 2021 and executed on 14 November 2021.
Mr Hennelly argued that the 2021 order was invalid because the earlier committal order had lapsed and the rules did not permit a fresh order in its place. He also argued that the companies had obtained an order for possession but had not taken a further step to obtain an order of possession before the contempt finding.
The respondent, the Governor of Mountjoy Prison, submitted that the orders supporting detention were regular on their face and that any challenge to their validity belonged in an appeal or judicial review. The respondent also argued that the court could issue a fresh committal order after an earlier one expired.
Mr Justice Barr found that the 2021 committal order recited the earlier orders, set out the contempt finding and explained how it could be purged. He said Mr Hennelly had an arguable case that the Central Office lacked jurisdiction to issue a fresh committal order, but concluded that earlier High Court decisions on fresh execution orders meant there was no established fundamental lack of jurisdiction for the Article 40 application. The judge said a challenge to the September 2021 order should be brought by judicial review, where the companies could be heard.
The court rejected the argument about the order for possession and said any alleged procedural irregularity should be addressed, if at all, in judicial review. It refused the relief sought and held that detention was in accordance with law. The judgment did not decide a judicial review challenge to the committal order.