The High Court has ruled that Joseph Davis is exempt from paying stamp duty on court documents in his civil proceedings over an alleged unlawful arrest and detention in Dublin.
Mr Justice Cregan held that Mr Davis's case is, in substance, a proceeding under Article 40.4.1 of the Constitution and therefore falls within an exemption in the 2014 court fees order. Mr Davis is also entitled to a refund of stamp duty already paid.
The ruling settles only the court-fee issue. It does not determine whether Mr Davis was unlawfully arrested or detained, claims which are denied by Ireland and the Attorney General.
Mr Davis issued proceedings in August 2023. He claims that on 4 April 2021 he was stopped on O'Connell Street, arrested, detained at Bridewell Garda Station and then held in Cloverhill Prison for four nights. His pleadings seek damages for alleged breaches of constitutional rights and include claims of false imprisonment, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and defamation.
The defendants deny his allegations. Their defence says gardaí encountered Mr Davis during Level 5 Covid-19 restrictions, asked him for his name and subsequently arrested him after he refused to provide it. It states that he was charged with failing or refusing to give a name and address and refusing to allow a Garda photograph, before being brought to court and remanded to Cloverhill.
The State argued that the fee exemption for proceedings under Article 40.4 should be limited to habeas corpus cases involving a person currently detained.
Mr Justice Cregan rejected that interpretation. He held that Article 40.4.1 also permits civil proceedings alleging that a person had previously been deprived of liberty otherwise than in accordance with law, including claims seeking declarations and damages.
The judge said merely citing Article 40.4.1 is not enough to obtain the exemption; courts must examine whether the pleadings genuinely and substantively raise such a claim. He found that Mr Davis's proceedings met that test.
The merits of Mr Davis's underlying case remain to be determined separately.