Gary Miller v Governor of Midlands Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Baker
• Judgment Date: 26 March 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 176
• Date: 26 March 2014

Miller v Governor of the Midlands Prison

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

GARY MILLER

APPLICANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF THE MIDLANDS PRISON

RESPONDENT

[2014] IEHC 176

[No. 491 S.S./2014]

THE HIGH COURT

Order for Release – Constitution – Prison - Committal Warrant – Unlawful Detention – Appeal – Practice and Procedure - Road Traffic Act 1961 – Time – Construction of Legal Documents – Time Delays

Facts: The applicant, who had been convicted of five driving offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Finance Act 1976, following an appeal of his conviction on the 18 ^th March 2014, applied on the 25 ^th March 2014 for an order for release. A conditional order was granted, but was made returnable on that same date. The applicant was detained on foot of a committal warrant at Midlands Prison. That warrant it was claimed was invalid as it lacked vital information, specifically the reasons for his detention. Consequently, despite this error being rectified and subsequently submitted to the court, it was asserted by the applicant, that the warrant was defective and that his detention was, therefore, unlawful.

Held by Justice Baker, that the inquiry before the court was essentially a hearing into the lawfulness of the current detention of the applicant and on the evidence adduced at that hearing. Whilst, he accepted that the warrant at issue did contain some relevant information including the individual record numbers of the charges of which the applicant was convicted, it did not, however, identify the nature of the matters which the applicant was convicted. Accordingly, having examined the applicable laws and precedent cases, Justice Baker determined that the original warrant did not form a basis in law for the detention of the applicant and that on its own did not provide sufficient information as to the reason for the applicant's detention. Acknowledging that the original warrant could have as a matter of law been joined to other documents, including court records and the amended warrant which could have justified the detention, given the circumstances, and having regard to clear authority on the subject that the court may seek and find clarification and assistance in the records of the court to assist in interpreting the grounds for detention, Justice Baker directed the release of the applicant as he was not detained in accordance with the law.

Judgement: Approved

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S38

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56(3)

CONSTITUTION ART 40

JOYCE v GOVERNOR OF THE DOCHAS CENTRE 2012 2 IR 666 2013 2 ILRM 366 2012/19/5564 2012 IEHC 326

EJERENWA v GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISON UNREP SUPREME 28.10.2011 2011/20/5060 2011 IESC 41

GOSSET v HOWARD 116 ER 158 1845 10 QB 411

GALLAGHER v DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL (NO 2) 1996 3 IR 1 1996/11/3382

COSTELLO THE LAW OF HABEAS CORPUS IN IRELAND 2006 72

CARROLL v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 2005 3 IR 292 2005/9/1904 2005 IEHC 2

TYNAN, IN RE 1969 IR 273

BRIEN, STATE v KELLY 1970 IR 69

MCMAHON v LEAHY 1984 IR 525

COURTS OF JUSTICE (DISTRICT COURT) ACT 1946 S23

CADDLE, STATE v JUDGE MCCARTHY & ORS 1957 IR 359

CCR (1950) O.43 r6

CCR O.41 r6

1 JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Baker delivered the 26th day of March, 2014

2 1. The applicant applied on Tuesday, 25 ^th March, 2014, for an order for release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. A conditional order was granted by me at 1pm. The matter was made returnable at 4pm on that day when the court entered upon a long hearing of the matter. The respondent and the appropriate State authorities were on notice of the application and counsel appeared for the applicant and respondent.

Facts

3 2. The application was grounded on the affidavit of John Quinn, solicitor. The applicant was convicted of five separate driving offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Finance Act 1976, as amended. Convictions and sentences were made by the judge of the District Court, Naas on 4 ^th April, 2013, and were appealed by the applicant to the Circuit Court which, on the hearing of the appeal on 18 ^th March, 2014, affirmed each of the five convictions and the sentences imposed by the District Court.

4 3. Two of the convictions of the District Court, as so affirmed by the Circuit Court, are relevant to this application: the offence under s. 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and that under s. 56(1) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended. In each, the District Court Judge had imposed a term of imprisonment of five months, commencing on 4 ^th April, 2013, and to run concurrently. The terms of imprisonment and the concurrent nature of these terms were affirmed without variation by the Circuit Court order on 18 ^th March, 2014.

5 4. The applicant was detained in the Midlands Prison on foot of a committal warrant, the subject matter of this application. It is asserted, inter alia, that the warrant was defective and that the detention of the applicant at the Midlands Prison is as a result unlawful.

The short form warrant

6 5. The committal warrant had the record number of the circuit appeal and identified the appeal as having been heard in the Circuit Court. The date of birth of the applicant was identified in the heading.

7 6. The body of the warrant provided as follows:-

8 To the Governor of Midlands Prison, Portlaoise, Co. Laois

9 Her Honour Judge Stewart, Judge of the Circuit Court assigned to said Circuit on the 18 ^th day of March 2014 has this day heard and determined the Appeal of the above named Defendant taken from the District Court in the above mentioned Criminal Case and pursuant to her Order on such Appeal has directed that the above named Defendant be imprisoned for a period totalling 10 months. Such sentence is comprised of;

10 · 5 months - case no. 2012/220465/1;

11 · 5 months - on case no. 2012/220465/4 to be served after the legal expiration of the 5 months imposed in case no. 2012/220465/1;

12 You are hereby authorised and empowered to receive the body of the said Gary Miller and him to imprison and keep at Midlands Prison, Portlaoise, Co. Laois pending the issue in due course of a formal Warrant of Execution.

13 7. This warrant was dated at Naas on 18 ^th March, 2014, and was signed by a nominated signatory on behalf of the County Registrar.

14 8. In the course of the hearing before me and for present purposes I described this document as the "short form warrant".

Basis of detention

15 9. Following on the making of the conditional order by me, the Governor was required pursuant to the provisions of Article 40 to state the reasons for the detention and for that purpose the Assistant Governor, Teresa McCormack, certified in writing that the applicant was held in custody pursuant to the warrant of 18 ^th March, 2014, and the short form warrant was exhibited.

16 10. Counsel for the applicant relied in particular on the judgment of Hogan J. in Joyce v. Governor of the Dóchas Centre [2012] IEHC 326, [2012] 2 I.R. 666, and says that the warrant held in that case not to form a sufficient basis for the lawful detention of the applicant was in substantially the same form as the short form warrant offered as justification for detention by the respondent in this case. Counsel for the respondent pointed to one particular element in the short form warrant which he says is sufficient to enable this court to distinguish the judgment of Hogan J. in Joyce v. Governor of the Dóchas Centre. In particular, he asked the court to note that the short form warrant contained two unique signifiers, and in regard to each of the two detention periods the case number was expressly set out. The warrant which was held to be insufficient to ground detention in Joyce v. Governor of the Dóchas Centre did not contain any signifier or reference to the offence to which the applicant was convicted and did not record in any way that offence, but simply referred to, at para. 29, "the above mentioned criminal case". As was noted by Hogan J. in that case, there was no separate conviction order from the Circuit Court before him when he determined the application for the inquiry.

17 11. The respondent then produced to the court the relevant orders of the District Court upon each of which was certified, by the nominated signatory on behalf of the County Registrar, the fact that the Circuit Court Judge had on the hearing of the appeal on 18 ^th March, 2014, affirmed the District Court order. The certificate was made on the 25 ^th March, 2014, and in each case identified the specific charges in respect of which the convictions were made. It is not disputed that these documents were generated for the purposes of the hearing before me and after the conditional order for the inquiry was made.

18 12. Counsel for the respondent also produced fax copies of two documents called "committal warrant after appeal" which showed they were faxed at 4:39pm on 25 ^th March, 2014, and which contain the full statement of the District Court order and a full recital of the findings of the Circuit Court Judge on appeal. Again, it is not contested that this document was generated for the purposes of the hearing before me. This document in the course of the hearing was referred to as the "long form warrant".

What is the nature of the inquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2?

19 13. The focus of this part of the application before me is the question of whether the short form warrant was sufficient to warrant the detention of the applicant at the Midlands Prison. Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution is clear as to the procedure which requires to be followed: Upon the production of the body of the applicant before the High Court and, after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the...