The High Court refused an application for the release of a man detained in Cork Prison, finding that errors in the District Court bail hearing and concerns about psychiatric treatment did not make his detention unlawful under Article 40 of the Constitution.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 18 August 2016, concerned a man identified as R.A. He was in custody under a District Court order of 5 August, which refused bail. He had originally been charged with theft relating to a video camera valued at €1,500. After being granted bail in March, he did not attend court on the return date. A warrant issued, and he was later charged with failing to appear.
At the 5 August bail hearing, his solicitor relied on a letter from a consultant forensic psychiatrist saying R.A. remained unwell and needed psychiatric admission. The letter said a bed would be reserved at James Connolly Hospital if bail were granted and proposed that he be transported there when a bed became available. The State accepted that he needed psychiatric help but argued that, while lawfully in custody, arrangements for medical care were a matter for the prison authorities.
The judge refused bail without giving reasons. Justice Costello said the District Court had erred by refusing bail without sworn testimony supporting the State’s position. However, she concluded that the hearing was not so exceptionally flawed as to justify release through an Article 40 inquiry. The failure to give reasons was an error within the District Court’s jurisdiction, and the appropriate route to challenge the bail refusal was an application for bail in the High Court.
The court also rejected the separate claim that the conditions of detention made continued custody unlawful. A medical report had described R.A. as acutely psychotic and in need of admission, but Justice Costello said she had no information about his progress after the psychiatrist’s 4 August letter or whether he remained non-compliant with medication. The judgment said the information before the court did not establish a complete failure to provide appropriate treatment or a basis for immediate release.
The Article 40 application was refused on both grounds. The court did not decide a fresh application for bail, and the judgment noted that such an application could be made in the usual way.