The High Court ruled that Ben Gilroy’s detention in Mountjoy Prison under a committal order was in accordance with law, rejecting an application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 12 February 2019. The court considered whether the committal order, dated 16 January 2019, showed invalidity on its face, or whether there had been a fundamental denial of justice. The judgment said challenges to the conduct of the underlying proceedings were matters more properly dealt with on appeal.
Three concerns were raised about the order’s face. First, it directed Gardaí to arrest Mr Gilroy and lodge him in Mountjoy Prison, but did not expressly say the prison’s Governor was to detain him. Relying on a binding precedent, the court held that this omission was not a legal flaw.
Second, a Garda endorsement said the warrant had been executed by lodging Mr Gilroy in prison on 17 January. The Garda explained by affidavit that this was a human error and should have read 16 January. A prison computer record in evidence also showed that Mr Gilroy was lodged on 16 January. The court considered the mistaken date explained.
Third, an objection was made that the title to the underlying proceedings named “Allied Irish Banks plc” rather than “Allied Irish Banks, plc”. The judgment said the record number was undisputed and that, in proceedings under that number, the committing judge had found Mr Gilroy guilty of criminal contempt. Any flaw in the financial institution’s name was not fatal.
The court also considered Mr Gilroy’s account that, after being brought from court to a Garda station on 16 January, he asked whether he was under arrest and was told he was not, but was not free to leave. The Governor’s counsel submitted that the process was no different from the ordinary procedure after a sentence of imprisonment. The court reasoned that a judge’s order takes effect when pronounced, while later documentation formalises it, so detention remains under a lawful court order.
A further claim concerned an alleged change in committal practice around 2017, compared with the approach of a now-retired Court of Appeal judge when sitting in the High Court. The court held that a different approach by the committing judge did not itself establish a change in law or inconsistency with the law.
The judgment’s conclusion was limited to the Article 40.4.2 challenge: the court concluded that Mr Gilroy’s detention at Mountjoy under the order was lawful.