BOLGER v Commissioner of GARDA Síochána and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: by Lynch, J.
• Judgment Date: 08 July 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IESC 53
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1999] 7 JIC 0803
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 08 July 1999

[1999] IESC 53

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton, C.J.

Barrington, J.

Keane, J.

Murphy, J.

Lynch, J.

Record No. 345/98

Record No. 346/98

Record No. 27/99

BOLGER v. COMMISSIONER OF GARDA SIOCHANA & ORS

BOLGER

.v.

COMMISSIONER OF GARDA SIOCHANA & ORS.

Citations:

PRISONS ACT 1956

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4

CONSTITUTION ART 40

Synopsis

Constitutional

Habeas corpus; extradition; bail; appellant had been arrested on foot of extradition warrant; extradition proceedings adjourned to allow for application for order under Art. 40.4 of the Constitution; relief refused by the High Court since valid certificate for his detention existed; appellant admitted to bail pending determination of extradition proceedings; appellant appealed High Court decision that detention was valid; Supreme Court dismissed appeal and affirmed the High Court order; appellant brought motion for his release and the discharge of his bail; High Court struck out appellant's motion; appeal brought to Supreme Court; whether Art. 40 proceedings were conclusively ended on the Supreme Court's dismissal of the first appeal; whether fresh application under Art. 40 could be brought if the detention became unlawful for reasons other than those dealt with before the Supreme Court on the first appeal.

Held: Appeals are an attempt to revive proceedings which have been spent; appeal dismissed.

Bolger v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J., Barrington J., Keane J., Murphy J., Lynch J. (ex tempore) 08/07/1999 - [2000] 1 ILRM 144

While the appellant had made very serious allegations against the parties involved in extradition proceedings against him suggesting in effect that they were engaged in a conspiracy to defeat a just claim which he had against them by having him extradited to prevent him prosecuting those proceedings before the Irish courts, his affidavit was rich in allegations but very light in evidence. If a person adduced evidence and made an allegation based on assertions sworn to by him of fact there was no doubt that he may be entitled to judicial review although those assertions had not been tested by cross-examination or otherwise. The allegations were of a general nature unsupported by any firm evidence. It was therefore not a proper case for judicial review. The appellant had not made out a stateable case establishing or tending to establish an abuse of the process of the court. The Supreme Court so held in refusing to grant the relief sought.

1 JUDGMENT (ex-tempore) delivered on the 8th day of July, 1999 by Lynch, J.

2 At about half past seven on the morning of Tuesday, 20th October, 1998 a number of members of the Garda Síochána arrived at the Appellant's dwellinghouse and arrested him pursuant to warrants issued in the United Kingdom and duly backed in this State for extradition to the United Kingdom. He was brought from his dwellinghouse to a local Garda Station and thence to the Bridewell Garda Station and thence to the District Court where the matter of the extradition was mentioned. On application of his Solicitor the extradition proceedings were adjourned because the Solicitor indicated that he wished to make an application for an Order under Article 40 of the Constitution in the High Court.

3 That application for the Order under Article 40 S.4 came on at the sitting of the High Court at about half past ten or eleven o'clock before Mr. Justice O'Sullivan and it was successful in the sense that the High Court ordered that the Appellant be brought before the High Court at 2pm and that the grounds of his detention be certified. At 2pm he was brought before the High Court - on this occasion, it was Miss Justice Laffoy who was presiding. A Certificate from the Appellant's jailer who was a Sergeant of the Garda Siochana, was produced to the Court, which showed that pursuant to the Prison's Act, 1956he was being detained in the custody of the Sergeant and for the time being he was...