The High Court refused a habeas corpus application by a prisoner at Midlands Prison, finding that his detention was lawful and that the remedy did not address his complaint that a bail application had not been listed for hearing.
Mr Justice Haughton said the applicant was serving a six-year sentence, with one year suspended, after the Court of Criminal Appeal reduced an eight-year sentence imposed following his conviction for sexual assault at Galway Circuit Criminal Court in February 2013.
The unrepresented applicant brought the application ex parte. He said he had issued plenary proceedings against Ireland and the Attorney General challenging provisions of the Juries Act 1976 on constitutional, EU law and European Convention grounds. He applied separately for bail while those proceedings were pending.
The applicant said his first bail application was returned because he had used the wrong procedure. He then sent the prescribed form and supporting documents to the High Court in July 2015, but said the application had not been listed and no explanation had been given. He argued that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to grant bail and that the failure to list his application denied him access to court.
Mr Justice Haughton noted that the applicant had produced no written refusal to list the bail application and gave no further detail to support the claim. The judge said the applicant could seek judicial review of a failure or refusal to list it after making an appropriate demand. He held that habeas corpus was not appropriate because the complaint concerned the listing of the bail application, while there was no suggestion that the conviction or sentence was invalid on its face.
The judge also said no evidence or argument had been presented to explain why the Juries Act provisions might be unconstitutional or invalid under EU law or the Convention. The plenary proceedings had not been put in evidence. The court therefore had to assume the applicant was detained in accordance with law.
The judgment recognised that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant conditional release where detention is challenged in civil proceedings. In deciding whether to do so, the court may consider the strength of the challenge as well as matters such as attendance at court or possible interference with witnesses. Here, the judge considered the presumption that the Juries Act is constitutional and the absence of material supporting an arguable challenge.
Mr Justice Haughton concluded that the applicant was lawfully detained and was not entitled to habeas corpus. He refused the application; the judgment did not determine the merits of the separate challenge to the Juries Act.