The High Court converted Frank Koranteng’s application for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention at Cloverhill Prison into an application for leave to seek judicial review. It said the complaints concerned the conduct of a District Court judge, rather than the actions of the prison governor detaining him, and that judicial review could provide more appropriate remedies.
Mr Justice John Edwards delivered the judgment on 12 January 2009. Koranteng had been remanded in custody on 6 January at Cloverhill District Court on a charge under section 12 of the Immigration Act 2004, which concerns producing identity and nationality documents when demanded. The judgment says the alleged offence carries a maximum penalty of a €3,000 fine, 12 months’ imprisonment, or both.
According to an affidavit from his solicitor, Koranteng had been charged in October 2008 and repeatedly remanded while authorities sought to establish his identity. He said he had never held a Ghanaian passport, had entered Ireland without authentic identity documents intending to seek asylum, and had applied for asylum while in custody.
The solicitor’s affidavit said documents sent from Ghana—including a polling card, baptismal certificate and church tithe card—were offered to the prosecution. After a District Court judge directed that they be examined, Gardaí reportedly said they could not determine whether they were genuine. The solicitor also reported that a Ghanaian consular official refused assistance. These accounts were presented in the affidavit; the High Court judgment did not determine the documents’ authenticity or the asylum claim.
At the 6 January hearing, the solicitor said he told District Judge Sheridan that efforts to establish Koranteng’s identity had been exhausted and that his client was willing to plead guilty to conclude the charge. The Garda sought a further custodial remand. The solicitor said the judge refused to hear a bail application, citing uncertainty about Koranteng’s identity, and also declined to finalise the charge on a guilty plea. Koranteng was remanded to 13 January.
Justice Edwards gave five reasons for changing the procedure. The complaint was against the judge, who could be heard in judicial review; the Article 40 inquiry procedure did not provide for another party to be represented; and an Article 40 order could only secure unconditional release. The judge considered that release disproportionate and said judicial review could allow a decision to be sent back for reconsideration if it was found unlawful. He also noted that bail could be sought as an ancillary application during judicial review proceedings.
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review and allowed short service on the State for a bail motion, to be heard at 11am on 8 January 2009. The judgment does not record a decision on bail or the eventual outcome of the criminal charge.