The High Court has refused an application to release James Byrne from Mountjoy Prison, finding his detention was in accordance with law on the evidence before it. The ruling concerned an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution and did not determine whether the judge who re-issued one of four warrants had authority to do so.
Byrne was arrested in May 2008 in relation to alleged offences and brought before the District Court. He was remanded on bail. Four other warrants concerning him had expired without being executed. A Garda sought to have them re-issued on 26 May, but the judge declined because the application lacked the required certificate explaining why the warrants had not been executed.
On 3 June, Garda Paul Oates applied to Judge Mary Collins to re-issue all four warrants while Byrne’s cases were before another judge, and without notifying Byrne’s solicitor. Oates said he provided a certificate for each warrant, explaining that Byrne’s whereabouts had been unknown for some time and he had been moving between addresses. The certificates could not later be found by the District Court office.
Judge Collins re-issued the warrants after asking Oates whether the certificates were correct. Oates then returned to the other courtroom, where Byrne was remanded on bail until 1 July. The court was told there was no objection to bail. After Byrne left, Oates arrested him on the re-issued warrants and handed him copies.
For Byrne, counsel argued that the lack of notice and Oates’s conduct in consenting to bail while intending to arrest him breached fair procedures and made the detention unlawful. The respondent argued the warrant renewal process was properly conducted under the District Court Rules, which provide for an ex parte application, and that the warrants were enforceable post-conviction warrants.
The High Court said the Article 40 inquiry was not the place to decide whether Judge Collins acted within her jurisdiction or whether the certificates contained sufficient evidence; those matters would require judicial review. It treated the warrants as properly re-issued for the purpose of this application, except that it left open the question whether Judge Collins could re-issue the warrant issued by Edenderry District Court. Byrne’s counsel had not relied on that issue, so the judge made no determination on it.
The court said the lack of notice may have deprived Byrne of an opportunity to address the claim that he was moving between addresses, but there was no evidence from Byrne about what contrary information could have been given. It made no final determination on whether Oates’s conduct merited criticism. The court concluded that any such criticism did not establish a breach of a fundamental right requiring release, and refused the relief sought.