The High Court declined to make an order on a prisoner's application seeking an inquiry into the legality of his detention, finding that the papers before it did not suggest he was being held unlawfully or that there had been a fundamental failure of justice.
In a judgment delivered on 17 May 2010, Mr Justice Charleton said the personal application appeared to have been brought by Simon O’Dwyer, who was then in custody in Midlands Prison. The judge said it was not an application on which he was entitled to act.
O’Dwyer sought an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. In an unsworn document, he challenged the form and contents of District Court orders and committal warrants. Among other things, he alleged that the orders did not show jurisdiction or identify an offence, that one warrant referred to Limerick Prison rather than Midlands Prison, and that documents relating to charge sheets were missing or unclear. He argued that the orders were “null and void”.
The papers included a warrant dated 4 February 2010 providing for conditional release on a recognisance of €5,000 and a cash lodgement of the same amount. A second warrant, dated 16 February 2010, recorded that the accused had pleaded not guilty and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, to take effect after a sentence imposed by Carrick-on-Suir District Court on 4 February.
Justice Charleton said the complaints concerned the proper form of documents and did not establish unlawful detention. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in *The State (McDonagh) v Frawley* [1978] I.R. 131, he said habeas corpus required a failure of fundamental requirements amounting to a want of due process; a defect or illegality alone did not require release.
The judge also said the papers indicated that O’Dwyer had been convicted on charge sheets, copies of which should have been provided to him under ordinary procedure. The application referred only to two committal warrants, and the judge said he could not make an order when vital information had been withheld.
Justice Charleton said he saw no substance in the points raised. He said he would invoke the habeas corpus procedure if information suggested detention beyond the lawful period, but no such suggestion had been made. With no evidence of detention beyond the lawful term or a fundamental want of justice in the convictions, he said the proper remedy was an appeal.