The High Court refused Andrew Larkin’s application for release from Mountjoy Prison, finding that he was detained in accordance with law. The ruling was made by Mr Justice Eagar on 25 November 2016 in an Article 40.4.2 inquiry into the legality of Larkin’s detention.
Larkin had been sentenced in 2014 for burglary, robbery and attempted robbery. Some of the sentences were suspended. After he pleaded guilty to trespass, criminal damage and theft offences committed in December 2014 and January 2015, the Circuit Court considered whether to reactivate the suspended sentences. On 27 February 2015, Judge Hogan reactivated them. Larkin received an eight-month sentence for the later offences, which he did not appeal.
Larkin appealed the reactivation of the suspended sentences. That appeal had not been heard when the High Court considered his release application. His solicitor argued that the reactivation relied on statutory provisions later declared unconstitutional in Moore & Ors. v DPP & Ors. The solicitor’s affidavit contended that the sentences therefore did not lawfully authorise his detention.
Justice Eagar considered the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in Clarke v Governor of Mountjoy Prison, as well as other authorities on the effect of declarations of unconstitutionality. He accepted that Larkin’s pending appeal meant he was not barred from seeking the benefit of the Moore ruling solely because the criminal proceedings had not concluded.
But the judge found that the declaration in Moore did not automatically invalidate Larkin’s detention. He said the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to deal with the suspended sentences. The judgment also noted that Larkin had pleaded guilty to the offences that triggered the reactivation and had not identified substantive injustice, unfair prejudice, discrimination or a breach of fair procedures in the hearings leading to the reactivation.
The court concluded that Larkin was detained in accordance with law and refused the Article 40 application. It did not determine his pending appeal against the reactivated sentences.