The High Court refused an application to release a man held on remand while awaiting service of the book of evidence in a prosecution for allegedly withholding information about a killing. The court held that the District Judge who ordered a further remand had evidence before him on which he could rely.
In a judgment delivered on 30 March 2012, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the Article 40.4.2 inquiry had been heard on 21 February, after the applicant was produced from Castlerea Prison. The application challenged the lawfulness of his detention following a remand order made on 17 February. The judge concluded that the detention was in accordance with law and refused release.
The applicant faced a charge under section 9 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. It alleged that he failed, without reasonable excuse, to disclose information he knew or believed might help secure the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for a serious offence: the unlawful death of John Kenny. The charge was to be tried on indictment.
The applicant’s solicitor said he had been in custody for more than five months, could not meet the terms of bail previously set, and was distressed and in declining physical condition. The solicitor also challenged delays in preparing the book of evidence and the explanations given at successive remand hearings. Counsel argued that the delay was inexcusable and infringed the applicant’s rights to liberty and an expeditious trial. The prosecution disputed that the detention was unlawful and said any challenge to the District Judge’s exercise of discretion could be pursued through judicial review.
A detective sergeant testified that about 300 people had been interviewed and made statements in the investigation. He said the Director of Public Prosecutions gave final directions on 2 February 2012 for the charge to proceed on indictment, and that the book of evidence would be served at Harristown District Court on 2 March. He denied that the applicant was being kept in custody to facilitate possible further charges.
Justice Peart found that the District Judge had heard evidence about the investigation, the number of witnesses and the work involved in preparing the book of evidence. Given that material, the judge was entitled to grant a further remand. The High Court’s decision was limited to whether detention under the 17 February order was lawful; it did not decide the applicant’s guilt or determine any later bail application.