The High Court has rejected M.H.’s challenge to the constitutionality of sections 2 and 2A of the Bail Act 1997, finding that the earlier refusal of bail was not based wholly on a Chief Superintendent’s belief evidence.
M.H. brought the proceedings under Article 40 of the Constitution while detained at Cork Prison. The challenge followed the refusal of High Court bail in July 2016, when the prosecution relied on section 2A evidence from Chief Superintendent David Sheahan. The source does not state the date of the High Court’s ruling in this constitutional challenge. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Faherty.
M.H. had been charged in Limerick District Court with alleged assault causing harm and false imprisonment arising from an alleged incident on 14 September 2015. The prosecution alleged that he was among a group who lured a person to a house, assaulted and detained him, and shot nails into his feet. Those allegations were not findings in the constitutional proceedings.
At the bail hearing, the prosecution also presented evidence about the charges, including CCTV and vehicle tracking evidence described in the judgment. The bail judge considered the seriousness of the alleged offences and the evidence said to connect M.H. to them. He also heard Chief Superintendent Sheahan’s opinion that refusing bail was reasonably necessary to prevent a serious offence. The bail judge refused bail after weighing that opinion alongside the other evidence and the factors advanced for M.H., including his record and community involvement.
In the constitutional case, M.H. argued that the opinion evidence was decisive and rested on information he could not effectively challenge, including material subject to privilege. He also argued that section 2A lacked adequate safeguards. The State relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in CMcD v Ireland and the Attorney General, which held that section 2A admits the officer’s belief or opinion, not hearsay statements from informants, and that the bail court must assess its weight.
Justice Faherty found that the bail judge had considered a range of evidence under section 2, including the seriousness of the charges and the evidence said to support them. She concluded that the Chief Superintendent’s opinion was considered within that statutory framework and was not treated as automatically binding. The opinion ultimately prevailed in the bail judge’s assessment, but the constitutional court said the merits of that weighing exercise and the privilege ruling were not matters for it to decide.
The court therefore found that the challenge to sections 2 and 2A had not been made out. It did not overturn the bail refusal or determine the underlying criminal charges.