The High Court refused an application for an inquiry into the lawfulness of a man’s detention at Loughan House Prison, finding the material before it gave no sufficient basis to look behind a committal warrant that appeared valid on its face.
In a judgment delivered on 21 March 2008, Mr Justice John Edwards said the applicant sought relief under Article 40.4 of the Constitution. The warrant arose from a District Court conviction on 11 January 2008 for an offence under section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The court record, as described in the judgment, said the offence occurred on Main Street, Milford, County Donegal, on 18 June 2007.
The District Court imposed a €630 fine, with 80 days’ imprisonment in default if it was not paid within 30 days. The judgment said the fine had not been paid and a warrant of execution was issued. Although the warrant directed that the applicant be lodged in Castlereagh Prison, the judge inferred that he was received there and later transferred to Loughan House. No issue was raised about that transfer.
The applicant’s affidavit alleged that Gardaí unlawfully arrested, assaulted and falsely imprisoned him while he was walking across the Diamond in Donegal town on 13 March 2008. He also alleged Gardaí had ill-will towards him linked to an earlier incident. The judge said the affidavit did not address the warrant, which appeared to authorise the arrest for non-payment of the fine.
A notice of appeal dated 19 March 2008 was also before the court. The judge said it did not specify the order being appealed and included assertions about the District Court judge’s appointment that he described as manifestly ill-founded. The notice alleged the applicant had been convicted without notice, but the judge noted that the applicant did not make that case in his affidavit. He also had not said he received no documents or that the address on the warrant was wrong.
The judge said he was not satisfied on the information then available that there was evidence of a conspiracy to convict the applicant in his absence and imprison him without notice. He refused the application, concluding there was no sufficient basis to open an Article 40.4 inquiry. The judgment did not determine the merits of the notice of appeal.