The High Court ordered Damien Galvin’s release from Cloverhill Prison after finding that his detention was unlawful because of how a District Court bail hearing had been conducted.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 4 October 2012, after ordering Galvin’s release at the end of the hearing that day. The application was an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, concerning the lawfulness of detention.
Galvin had been arrested on 20 September and charged under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Bail was refused at Kilcock District Court on 21 September, and he was remanded to Cloverhill Prison. He later sought High Court bail, but that application had been adjourned. By the time of the inquiry, he was detained under a warrant issued on 28 September. No complaint was made about the proceedings on that date; the challenge concerned the earlier bail hearing.
The applicant argued that the prosecution had not given advance notice that it would oppose bail on the basis that he might intimidate the injured party. His solicitor’s affidavit said Inspector Dolan referred in court to a statement from the injured party, but the statement was not produced and the injured party did not give evidence. Garda Daly testified in the High Court that he had told the District Judge the injured party feared Galvin. The solicitor had no recollection of hearing that evidence, though he accepted it might have been mentioned briefly.
Mr Justice Peart found that fair procedures required advance notice of an objection of this serious nature, giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to consider and answer it. He held that this right had been breached.
The judge also found no adequate evidential basis for the District Judge to form an independent view that Galvin would probably intimidate the injured party if released. The judge said Inspector Dolan’s statement about having a witness statement was not evidence, and the statement itself had not been produced. Hearsay may be admitted in exceptional bail cases, he said, but there must be evidence establishing a recognised basis for not requiring the witness to attend. No such basis had been provided.
The court rejected the suggestion that Galvin’s failure to challenge the 21 September hearing before the later remand made his detention lawful. It concluded that detention under the 28 September committal warrant was unlawful and ordered his release. The ruling addressed the legality of that detention; it did not determine the underlying criminal charge.