The High Court ordered the Gardaí to return an Argentine man’s passport, finding no legal basis for holding it while he was not subject to any court-imposed restriction on travel or access to travel documents.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 24 June 2013. He said the order had been granted at the conclusion of a hearing on 10 June: an interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring the first defendant, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, to hand the passport to the plaintiff’s agent immediately.
The plaintiff had been arrested on 25 February 2013 in connection with allegations of serious criminal offences. His passport was taken by the arresting Gardaí. He was charged the following day with an offence under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and remanded in custody. The judgment does not determine those criminal allegations.
After being refused bail by Harristown District Court on 26 April, he was released from custody by the High Court on 30 April following an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The judgment records that he later had no bail bond or other condition restricting his travel or liberty. His solicitors sought the passport’s return in early May; they were told it would not be released at that time.
The plaintiff was unemployed and had a job offer in Spain, where the judgment says he was entitled to work and held work and residency permits. He had booked a flight from Dublin to Barcelona for 12 May to take up the job but could not travel without his passport.
The State acknowledged that it could point to no relevant statutory provision or common-law power allowing the Gardaí to retain the passport in those circumstances. It nevertheless argued that the court should be slow to grant mandatory interlocutory relief. Hogan J said the defendants had advanced no arguable defence based on statute or common law. Given the impact of withholding the passport on the plaintiff’s constitutional right to travel, the court held that an effective remedy was required.
The judgment addressed only a person without travel restrictions imposed as a condition of bail under the Bail Act 1997. Hogan J said any future application to impose such restrictions would be for the District Court or another court handling the criminal proceedings; his judgment expressed no view on the outcome of any such application.