The Supreme Court has rejected an Article 40 challenge by Stiofán Breathnach to his detention while serving a number of prison sentences, the longest of which was 15 years following a Special Criminal Court conviction in November 1993.
The appeal arose after the High Court refused to order an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention. Mr Justice Geoghegan said the High Court had also been entitled to reject the application on procedural grounds because its title improperly named a number of respondents and the grounding affidavit contained irrelevant material.
The Supreme Court nevertheless considered the principal arguments because Breathnach had prepared the original papers himself and his counsel narrowed the issues on appeal.
The central argument concerned the certificate of the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 47 of the Offences against the State Act 1939. Breathnach argued that the certificate, which allowed the Special Criminal Court to try him, had not been formally proved during his trial.
The court rejected that submission. The certificate had been handed into the Special Criminal Court when a warrant was sought in July 1993 and the court subsequently acted on it. Under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, such a document proves itself unless the contrary is shown. The prosecution was therefore not required to call the DPP or another witness to formally prove it at trial.
Breathnach also argued that the three Special Criminal Court judges were required to retire together to deliberate in a manner analogous to a jury. The Supreme Court held that no such requirement existed. Each judge could reach a view individually, with the majority deciding the case.
A further argument that the sentencing court had to specify the prison was also rejected. The court held that deciding the place of imprisonment is an executive function.
Other complaints concerning the trial transcript and appeal-certificate procedures were held irrelevant to an Article 40 inquiry. The appeal was dismissed.