The High Court has refused an application by Paul Clarke for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention at Mountjoy Prison, ruling that he was detained in accordance with law. The application followed a separate High Court judgment declaring invalid the statutory procedure used to reactivate his suspended sentences.
Clarke had pleaded guilty in 2010 to robbery and firearm offences across three indictments. The court imposed consecutive prison terms, suspending substantial portions subject to conditions including probation supervision, drug treatment and keeping the peace. He was released in October 2013 after serving the custodial part.
In 2014, Clarke pleaded guilty in Cloverhill District Court to road traffic offences arising from two separate cases. Under sections 99(9) and (10) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, he was sent back to the Circuit Court, which reactivated all the previously suspended sentences and directed that they run concurrently from 30 April 2014. The District Court later imposed a suspended five-month sentence for driving without insurance and a 30-year driving ban; other charges were taken into consideration.
Clarke appealed the reactivation in November 2014. That appeal remained pending, but the High Court said no grounds had been filed and no hearing date assigned. In April 2016, another High Court judge ruled in *Moore and others v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General* that sections 99(9) and (10) were repugnant to the Constitution and invalid.
Clarke argued that the declaration meant his reactivation was unlawful and that he should be released. The respondent relied on the prison warrants, which the court said were valid on their face. The judgment noted that Clarke had pleaded guilty to the later offences, had not sought to appeal those convictions, and had not objected to the reactivation procedure when it was used. The court also recorded that he admitted breaching the conditions of his suspended sentences, including probation and treatment requirements.
Mr Justice McDermott said the Moore ruling did not automatically undo earlier decisions. Although Clarke could seek its benefit while his appeal remained pending, the court found no fundamental injustice, unfair prejudice or discrimination in his case that warranted retrospective application. It refused the Article 40 application and held that Clarke remained detained in accordance with law. The separate appeal against reactivation was still pending.