The High Court refused a further application by a prisoner for an inquiry under Article 40 into the legality of his detention at Arbour Hill Prison.
Mr Justice Ryan said the application did not give rise to an entitlement to an inquiry. The judgment, delivered on 7 April 2011, noted that at least two previous applications had been unsuccessful.
The applicant was serving a five-year sentence imposed after his 2007 conviction at Kilkenny Circuit Criminal Court for an offence of sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired person. He advanced five grounds, including claims that he had been misidentified in prosecution documents, that extradition warrants were invalid, that interference and threats had impaired his appeal and earlier hearings, that prison food posed a danger because of an alleged onion allergy, and that a named person had tried to pressure him to withdraw his applications.
On the identity and extradition claims, the judge referred to a deed dated 21 February 2008 recording a change of name from Peter Ivan Dunne to Ivan Peter Gan. He said the issues belonged before the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that changing one’s name by deed poll did not invalidate proceedings brought under the original name. The judge said concerns about the appeal should be brought to the Court of Criminal Appeal. He made no separate finding on the alleged interference or threats.
The applicant also said he was not receiving Kosher food and had twice been given food containing onions, on 2 February and 15 March 2011, despite claiming an allergy. The judge said prisoners’ special dietary needs should be catered for reasonably and properly, but the papers did not establish whether the applicant was entitled to Kosher food. He made no decision on that entitlement. He also noted the absence of detail about any complaint or request to prison authorities and said the applicant could raise the matter with the Governor or seek help from the visiting committee.
The judge said isolated, erroneous provision of onions did not make the detention unlawful or entitle the prisoner to an Article 40 inquiry. The application was refused.