The High Court has refused Brian Doolan’s ex parte application for habeas corpus, finding that he was lawfully detained after conviction and that his complaint about an unlisted bail application did not justify that remedy.
In a judgment delivered on 8 August 2015, Mr Justice Haughton said there was no suggestion that the order committing Doolan to prison was defective on its face. He was therefore to be treated as detained in accordance with law. The court refused habeas corpus; it did not decide the underlying constitutional challenge to the Juries Act or determine the bail application.
Doolan, who was unrepresented, was serving a 12-year sentence, with two years suspended and backdated to 27 January 2012, after a jury convicted him in the Central Criminal Court on 5 March 2013 of indecent assault, rape and sexual assault.
He told the court he had brought separate plenary proceedings against Ireland and the Attorney General, challenging parts of the Juries Act 1976 under the Constitution, EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. While those proceedings were pending, he sought bail. His first application was returned because he had used the wrong procedure. He said he then sent the required form and documents to the High Court in July, but the application had not been listed and no explanation was given.
Doolan argued that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to grant bail and that not listing his application denied him access to the courts. The judge noted that no written refusal or supporting detail had been produced. He said Doolan could seek judicial review of a failure or refusal to list the bail application after making an appropriate demand. Habeas corpus was not necessary or appropriate to address that complaint in a case of post-conviction detention.
The judgment distinguished a separate bail decision involving Ivor Callely, which had arisen within judicial review proceedings and in unusual circumstances. It also considered the decision in *Arra v Governor of Cloverhill Prison*, noting that a court considering conditional release in civil proceedings may take account of the strength of the challenge to detention. In Doolan’s case, the plenary proceedings had not been put in evidence and no argument had been presented to show an arguable claim against the Juries Act.
The court concluded that Doolan was lawfully detained and was not entitled to habeas corpus. The application was refused.