The High Court has refused an application by Mountjoy prisoner David Smyth for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention, finding that the issues he raised belonged in other legal procedures rather than an Article 40 application.
Ms Justice Stack delivered the ruling on 14 August 2026 after considering letters sent by Smyth on 30 July and 6 August. The second letter replaced the first, although the judge said both made substantially the same complaints.
According to Smyth's application, he was convicted in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in April 2026 of two offences under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. He said he received a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence on one count and a suspended sentence on the other. The High Court therefore treated him as a convicted prisoner, a category in which release under Article 40 is available only in extremely exceptional circumstances.
Smyth argued, among other matters, that there had been delay in prosecuting him and challenged the admissibility of evidence at his trial. Stack J said those issues were properly matters for the Court of Appeal, where Smyth had already exercised his right of appeal.
He also sought the return of five law books, access to legal research facilities, bail pending appeal and a form of temporary release. The judge held that none could found an Article 40 application. Complaints about access to legal materials could instead be pursued through prison procedures or separate civil proceedings, while bail must be sought through the usual application process.
The court noted that Smyth is entitled to legal representation for his appeal and may qualify for legal aid. Stack J said that, although he is entitled to represent himself, it would be in his interests to instruct another experienced solicitor.
Finding no grounds to question the legality of Smyth's detention, the judge refused to direct an Article 40 inquiry.