The High Court refused an application to release Robert Grackovs after finding that his continued detention at Wheatfield Prison was lawful under existing District Court warrants. The court also found that the removal order against him and the events surrounding an attempted removal to Latvia were unlawful.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered judgment on 16 May 2013, giving reasons for a decision made on 14 May after an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The court said the applicant’s convictions and the warrants for his sentences were not challenged in the proceedings.
The removal order was made in March 2012 after officials considered his criminal record. The Department had sent a proposal letter by registered post to an address in Tallaght in December 2011. It was accepted in court that Grackovs was then in custody and that the address was wrong. The judge held that the required notice provisions had not been followed, making the removal order unlawful and tainting actions taken under it.
On 8 May 2013, Grackovs was granted full temporary release on conditions requiring him to reside outside Ireland and accompany Garda National Immigration Bureau officers as part of the removal process. At Dublin Airport, he refused to board a flight to Riga and was arrested and returned to prison. The parties accepted that the attempted removal, arrest and detention pending removal were unlawful.
The judge found that the temporary-release decision was also tainted by the defective removal order. The conditions were central to the decision: the evidence showed release would not have been granted without the applicant’s agreement to comply with the removal process. The court therefore rejected the argument that those conditions could simply be disregarded while the remaining terms of release continued. The revocation of temporary release was not challenged in these proceedings.
Despite those findings, the court held that the unlawful arrest and return did not invalidate custody under the still-current warrants. The applicant had been serving concurrent sentences of nine, six and five months imposed on three warrants in February and March 2013. The judge said the warrants remained valid and that the sentences had been interrupted by the unlawful events. He refused the release application and determined that continued detention under the warrants was in accordance with law. The Governor could consider future temporary release on lawful conditions.