The Court of Appeal has decided to hear an appeal by the Governor of Mountjoy Prison against a High Court order that released Patrick Joseph McDonagh from detention. It did not decide whether the detention warrant was defective or whether the High Court was right to order his release.
Mr McDonagh was convicted in his absence in the District Court on 18 December 2013 of using marked motor fuel in his car, contrary to section 102 of the Finance Act 1999, as amended. The judgment said the District Court appeared to have imposed a €3,000 fine, with 90 days’ imprisonment in default of payment. The parties agreed that the warrant issued by that court did not accurately record those details.
After failing to pay the fine, Mr McDonagh was imprisoned on 11 October 2014 and later released temporarily. He was recommitted on 31 October 2014 after apparently failing to comply with the temporary-release conditions. His solicitor then sought an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, arguing that the warrant recorded the wrong penalty and was legally infirm.
On 14 November 2014, the High Court ordered his release because the detention warrant sent to him recorded a €300 penalty instead of €3,000. The Governor appealed.
The applicant argued that the appeal was moot because the 90-day sentence had expired. The Governor disputed that, submitting that Mr McDonagh had served about 28 days before his release and that, if the High Court order were reversed, he could have to serve the remaining roughly 62 days, subject to any remission. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the sentence had continued to run while he was out of prison; it said that question was unnecessary to resolve.
Writing for the court, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the mootness issue could be set aside where an appeal raised questions likely to recur or had other compelling reasons for a hearing. He considered that defects in warrants and their effect on detention arose frequently, had potential significance for many District Court cases, and might otherwise escape effective review because of the short sentences involved.
The court therefore exercised its discretion to hear the appeal, even if it was moot. It directed that the appeal proceed to a hearing on its merits. Justices Peart and Mahon agreed with Hogan J.’s judgment. The judgment does not state the eventual outcome of the appeal.