The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Clement Lobi against the refusal of his application for release from Clover Hill Prison, affirming the High Court order.
The appeal concerned whether Lobi was the same person as Samuel Nnebe, who had claimed asylum and was later subject to a deportation order. The judgment records that Nnebe failed to present himself for deportation at Anglesea Street Garda Station in Cork on 3 May 2002.
Lobi was arrested on 20 May 2002 under section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1999. The arresting garda believed he was the person who had presented himself to immigration officers as Nnebe on 13 May. A detention order was made in the name of Nnebe, directing detention at Clover Hill pending arrangements for removal from the State. The judgment says the validity of the steps taken in relation to the person described as Nnebe was not disputed.
Lobi maintained that he was a distinct person from Nnebe. In the Article 40.4 habeas corpus proceedings, his counsel argued that the High Court had relied on implausible and improperly considered identification evidence, and had not independently satisfied itself that the men were the same. The State accepted that it bore the burden of showing the detention was lawful. It relied on evidence from Garda Smith, who had interviewed the person using the name Nnebe at Dublin Airport and later identified Lobi as that person, as well as Garda Devaney’s comparison of photographs.
The Supreme Court said there was prima facie identification evidence from Garda Smith, alongside Lobi’s contrary affidavit. It held that the High Court judge, having seen and heard the evidence, was entitled to accept it if satisfied it was reliable. The Court said visual identification should be approached with caution, but did not require the Garda to qualify as an expert. It also said the photographs provided no basis to challenge Smith’s evidence and tended to confirm it.
The Court noted that fingerprint evidence was unavailable because fingerprints had not been taken under the practice at the time. It observed that taking fingerprints at entry could help prevent mistaken identification and identity changes to avoid deportation.
Hardiman J delivered the judgment on 19 July 2002. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order refusing release. It did not make a new release order; its decision left the High Court order in place.