Judgment: 2017-06-27 · Court archive

High Court refuses fourth habeas corpus inquiry by Stephen Manning

The court accepted that temporary release could count as detention for Article 40 purposes, but refused an inquiry because the application repeated grounds already rejected and alleged trial defects better pursued through other routes.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 411

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Stephen Manning (Applicant)
  • Richard Humphreys (Judge)
What

The court accepted that temporary release could count as detention for Article 40 purposes, but refused an inquiry because the application repeated grounds already rejected and alleged trial defects better pursued through other routes.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Castlebar
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has refused to order an inquiry into Stephen Manning’s detention, dismissing his fourth habeas corpus application. The court said temporary release could qualify as detention for the purposes of an Article 40 application, but found no basis to order an inquiry on the grounds put forward.

The High Court has refused to order an inquiry into Stephen Manning’s detention, dismissing his fourth habeas corpus application. The court said temporary release could qualify as detention for the purposes of an Article 40 application, but found no basis to order an inquiry on the grounds put forward.

Manning had been convicted in Castlebar District Court on 23 January 2017 of an offence under section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. He appealed to the Circuit Court, was again convicted and received a two-month prison sentence.

The judgment says Manning completed a prisoner application form on 1 June and sent it to the Courts Service under a letter dated 5 June. By then, he had been released temporarily and was no longer in prison. The judge dismissed the application on 7 June and later set out his reasons.

On the threshold question, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled in Manning’s favour. Although he was on temporary release, the conditions attached to that release restricted his liberty and could be revoked. The judge therefore considered that conditional liberty of this kind could be treated as detention for Article 40.4 purposes.

The court nevertheless declined to order an inquiry. The grounds substantially overlapped with those rejected by Mr Justice Binchy in an earlier habeas corpus application, and the latest application offered no new facts or authority. The judgment noted that an appeal was the conventional route to challenge that earlier decision.

Manning’s complaints centred on alleged defects in his Circuit Court trial, including fair-procedure concerns. The judge agreed with the earlier view that alleged shortcomings in a summary trial would generally be more appropriately addressed through judicial review. He said Article 40 could still apply in exceptional cases involving a clear affront to legality, such as a sentence beyond what the law permits, lack of jurisdiction or a fundamental denial of justice.

The court’s order was to decline an inquiry. The judgment did not reconsider or set aside Manning’s convictions or sentence.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review