The High Court has refused an application by a man detained in Midlands Prison for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention. Ms Justice Irvine ruled on 18 July 2011 that the grounds he raised did not provide a legal basis for the relief sought.
The man had been convicted on seven counts of indecent assault and sentenced in March 2010 to two years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The conviction order recorded a direction that his name be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years. The judgment says the sentencing judge refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
The application concerned, among other matters, the man’s claim that the High Court had failed to deal with an earlier habeas corpus application he said he lodged in March 2011. Court staff could not locate the papers or related correspondence. The judge nevertheless considered copies of the documents he said he had submitted and was not satisfied they established a legal basis for arguing that his detention was unlawful.
His central argument was that section 10 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 prevented his prosecution or sentence under section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. The court said the offences occurred between August 1974 and August 1976, before the relevant 1981 Act provisions took effect. It held that the 1935 Act’s maximum sentence applied to those offences and that the 1981 Act did not undermine the prosecution, convictions or sentence.
The man also argued that he had not appeared before the Circuit Criminal Court on the indictment, that the committal order and warrant were invalid, and that his detention was unlawful because the warrant named Mountjoy Prison while he was held in Midlands Prison. The judge said the claim about the indictment was contrary to the documentary evidence and that no basis had been given for the allegations about the warrant. Prison transfers were a matter for the executive, the court said, and there was no evidence that a transfer order had not been made under the relevant legislation.
The judgment also addressed his claim that the sentencing judge had not ordered his registration as a sex offender. The court said that allegation, even if established, would not affect the lawfulness of his detention for the purposes of the application. It refused the application in full. The court did not further determine the requested declarations concerning the alleged handling of the earlier application.