Li v Governor of Wheatfield Prison

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKearns P.
Judgment Date13 May 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] IEHC 353
Date13 May 2011
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[No. 921 SS/2011]

[2011] IEHC 353

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 921 SS/2011]
Li v Governor of Wheatfield Prison
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN INQUIRY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

BETWEEN

JINGGUO LI
APPLICANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF WHEATFIELD PRISON
RESPONDENT
Kearns P.
1

This matter came before the Court by way of an Article 40 application. The applicant was detained at Wheatfield Prison. The facts are set out in the grounding affidavit of Peter Lavery Solicitor. The applicant is charged with an offence of working without a work permit.

2

The applicant came before District Judge Coughlan in relation to the charge on the 10th May, 2011. The applicant pleaded guilty and a plea in mitigation was made on his behalf. The District Judge sentenced the applicant to a nine months imprisonment and fixed recognisances in his own bond of €100 with an independent surety of €300 with no cash to be lodged.

3

The applicant was desirous of appealing the sentence imposed by Judge Coughlan. He had no previous convictions and had pleaded guilty to the offence.

4

In the afternoon of 10th May, 2011 the defence solicitor made an application to have a surety approved. This was dealt with before Judge Coughlan as well. The surety concerned gave evidence that he was a friend and former employer of the applicant. The learned District Judge refused the application on the stated basis that the particular surety would have been aware that the applicant was illegal.

5

The defence made efforts to have another person approved as a surety. This second proposed surety attended court on 11th May, 2011 for the purposes of making an application to be approved. This application came on before District Judge Coughlan. It was indicated that this man was an Irish citizen who had his passport in court. The judge was advised that the surety did not have any previous convictions and the gardai had no objection to him as surety. Judge Coughlan asked the solicitor how the proposed surety knew the applicant and it was indicated that he was his friend. The learned District Judge refused to approved the surety, again on the stated basis that this second surety knew that the applicant was illegal.

6

In the present Article 40 proceedings, the respondent is not showing cause. It is not being contended that the detention of the applicant, following the hearing described, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • D.F. v Garda Commissioner and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 Abril 2014
    ...precludes inhuman and degrading treatment of this kind: cf by analogy my own judgment in Kinsella v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2011] IEHC 353, [2012] 1 I.R. 37 37. As was pointed out in Kinsella, the protection of the person in Article 40.3.2 (including the overlapping right to bodily i......
  • D.F and Another v Garda Commissioner and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 14 Enero 2013
    ...of the person necessarily precludes treatment of this sort: cf. by analogy my own judgment in Kinsella v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2011] IEHC 353. 13 13. It has not been suggested that the remedies available under the common law and the Constitution are in some way inadequate or that th......
  • Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v PNC Global Investment Servicing (Europe) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 Enero 2012
    ...Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2011[ EWHC 479; ICDL GCC Foundation v European Computer Driving Licence Foundation Ltd [2011] IEHC 353 (Unrep Clarke J, 4/8/2011) and Bula Ltd v Crowley (Unrep, Barr J, 29/4/1997) considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 63A......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT