The High Court has refused an application to release a prisoner serving a sentence for harassment, finding that his objections to the conviction were matters for an appeal rather than an Article 40 habeas corpus inquiry.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 19 May 2023, after an inquiry into the detention of Thomas Michael Dignam at Castlerea Prison. The Governor had certified that Mr Dignam was held under a Circuit Court committal warrant following a jury conviction and sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment. The final 12 months were suspended on condition that he enter a peace bond, which he had refused to do.
Mr Dignam’s conviction arose from Facebook posts about Aidan Devlin, who had acted as an agent for KBC Bank during the execution of a possession order at a property in Strokestown, County Roscommon, in December 2018. The posts were made between February 2019 and November 2020. At trial, Mr Devlin said the posts caused him concern for his safety. A jury found Mr Dignam guilty of harassment in October 2022.
The prisoner argued that the prosecution had relied on an amended version of the harassment law that was not in force when the posts were made. The court rejected that argument. It said the original law could cover indirect communications, including public posts that came to a person’s attention, and found that the prosecution had relied on the original, unamended provision. Whether that law had been correctly applied to the facts was a matter for appeal.
The court also rejected an argument that the committal warrant’s use of “Tom Dignam” rather than “Thomas Michael Dignam” invalidated the detention. It found that the prisoner was the person identified in the warrant and that this was not a case of mistaken identity.
Other objections concerned the conduct of the arrest, trial and sentencing. The judge found that none established an absence of jurisdiction, a fundamental denial of justice or a fundamental flaw sufficient to justify release. Some issues, including how persistence applies to online posts that remain accessible, might be raised on appeal.
The prisoner also challenged the constitutionality of Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 on freedom-of-expression grounds. The High Court declined to refer the question to the Court of Appeal, finding that the provision could be interpreted consistently with constitutional speech rights, including through its “reasonable excuse” defence.
The application for release was refused. The judge said Mr Dignam could apply to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence, and could apply for legal aid for that purpose.