The High Court rejected a Midlands Prison remand prisoner’s complaints about the process for challenging detention, prison staff and adjournments to his trial, finding no basis for an order releasing him.
In a judgment delivered on 10 December 2012, Mr Justice Charleton said the prisoner’s main complaint—that he had to spend €40 on a commissioner for oaths to begin the procedure—was mistaken. Prisoners could write to the High Court to complain about their detention or its conditions, and the judge said a sworn affidavit was not required for that process.
The judge described the procedure as grounded in Article 40.4 of the Constitution, which allows a person in the State to ask the High Court to examine the legality of detention. He said the court could use procedures suited to the inquiry, including considering prison authorities’ explanations and any contrary evidence or submissions.
The judgment rejected the claim that prison staff and the governor were undermining the applicant’s rights. It said the material he had submitted gave no indication beyond the careful performance of correctional officers’ duties. The judge also noted that prisoner complaints could be scrutinised where they showed no substance.
The applicant further complained that his trial date had been adjourned from time to time. The judgment referred to his complaints about decisions by O’Malley and Sheehan JJ, but said the reasons were not articulated in the application. It found no indication that any judge had used the power to list trials improperly or treated the prisoner less fairly than others.
The court said listing judges had to weigh competing demands on limited court time, including the needs of litigants and the priority of other proceedings. It also said the complaints did not establish a fundamental-rights breach or an entitlement to release. Citing The State (McDonagh) v Frawley, the judge said a defect or illegality in detention does not by itself require release on habeas corpus; the default must be serious enough to mean detention lacks due process of law.
The judgment gives no further order beyond rejecting the complaints and says the court’s jurisdiction is limited where there is no substantial complaint.