The High Court has refused to order the release of an Albanian national detained at Cloverhill Prison after finding that his detention under immigration law was lawful.
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2013, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh rejected six challenges brought on behalf of the applicant under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, which allows the court to examine the legality of detention. The case concerned his custody at Cloverhill, not the separate criminal proceedings he faced in the Netherlands.
The man had been returned to Ireland from the Netherlands on 3 May without a passport. Gardaí refused him permission to land, arrested him and detained him at Dublin Airport while he tried to contact his son in Greece about obtaining his Albanian passport. He was taken to Cloverhill about two hours and 15 minutes after arrest. His solicitor told the court that he spoke little English and could not read the written notice explaining the refusal.
The applicant argued that his involuntary arrival meant he had not failed to seek permission to land, so the statutory arrest power did not apply. The judge rejected that argument, finding that the law also covered a non-national who had been refused permission to land and one present in Ireland without permission. He said this did not, by itself, mean that a criminal offence had been committed.
The court also rejected arguments that the airport detention was unlawful because the airport was not a prescribed place of detention, that custody passed between Garda members before the man reached Cloverhill, and that the written refusal notice was in English. The judge said a short period at the airport was incidental to arrest and transfer to a prescribed place, and the law did not require officials to ensure that the recipient understood the written grounds.
The applicant further argued that removal was not then possible because his passport was unavailable. The judge found detention could continue while bona fide efforts were under way to remove him, including seeking his existing passport or a new travel document. He also rejected a challenge based on the warrant’s use of an outdated ministerial title, treating it as a technical error that did not invalidate custody.
The court refused release. It made no finding on the outcome of the Dutch criminal matter, which the judgment said was due before a Dutch court on 13 May 2013.