A High Court judge has ruled that Michael Farrell should have been released from custody on 4 July 2012, finding that a District Court remand order made while a High Court stay was in force was invalid.
Mr Justice Hogan gave the judgment on 19 October 2012 in an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The question was whether Trim District Court could remand Mr Farrell in custody on Road Traffic Act charges despite a stay granted in separate judicial review proceedings. The inquiry concerned the legality of his detention, not the merits of the underlying charges or the earlier decision to grant the stay.
Mr Farrell had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for a separate offence under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. Taking statutory remission into account, he was due for release on 4 July. He remained in custody after Trim District Court remanded him on the Road Traffic Act charges, with consent to bail, until 5 July.
A High Court stay had been granted on 25 June in proceedings challenging the prosecution, including on the basis that Mr Farrell had been refused legal aid. The stay order covered the Road Traffic Act proceedings pending the judicial review or further order. When the order was shown to the District Court, counsel for Mr Farrell argued that the court could not remand him in custody. Judge Brennan nevertheless made the remand order. A warrant did not record the consent to bail; when the case came before Cloverhill District Court on 5 July, no further order was made and Mr Farrell was released.
The High Court considered whether the later events had made the inquiry moot. It proceeded with the case under an exception for issues affecting legal rights that are so short-lived they may evade review, particularly where personal liberty is at stake. The judge said the legality of detention over the narrow period from 4 to 5 July could not realistically have been resolved within those 24 hours.
Mr Justice Hogan said the stay remained in force and bound the District Court. While the District Court could have made no order or adjourned the proceedings to a named date, a custody remand was an adverse step inconsistent with the stay. He held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to make the order, even though it included consent to bail and similar remands had previously been made.
The judge concluded that the remand until 5 July was invalid and that there was no proper legal basis for Mr Farrell’s detention on 4 July. Given the limits of an Article 40.4.2 inquiry, the court declared that he was entitled to have been released that day.