Lobi -v- Governor of Cloverhill Prison,  IESC 58 (2002)
|Party Name:||Lobi, Governor of Cloverhill Prison|
THE SUPREME COURTMurphy J. 192/02
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 40.4 OF THE CONSTITUTION
IN THE MATTER OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACTS Between:CLEMENT LOBI Appellant/Applicantand
THE GOVERNOR OF CLOVER HILL PRISON Respondent
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hardiman delivered on the 19th day of July, 2002.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court (Murphy J.) of the 26th June, 2002 whereby the Applicant's application for an order directing his release from the custody of the Respondent was refused.
The following is the undisputed background to the present application.
On the 20th May, 2002 the Applicant was arrested by Detective Garda Ronan Devaney under Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act, 1999. This was because of Garda Devaney's belief that he was one and the same person who presented himself to immigration officers on the 13th May, 2002 and gave his name as Samuel Nnebe, claiming asylum. A Deportation Order in respect of Samuel Nnebe had been made after his claim for asylum failed. He failed to present himself for deportation to Anglesea Street Garda Station, Cork, on Friday 3rd May, 2002.
Having been arrested, the Applicant, under the name Samuel Nnebe, was the subject of a Detention Order pursuant to the Immigration Act, 1999 directing that he be detained in Clover Hill Prison pending the making of arrangements for his removal from the State.
There is no dispute as to the validity of all steps taken in relation to the person describing himself as Samuel Nnebe. This is of course, is consistent with the Applicant's case that he is not Samuel Nnebe, as discussed below.
Issues on the present application.
The issue on the present application is an extremely net one. The Applicant asserts that his true identity is that of Clement Lobi and that this is a distinct person from the man described as Samuel Nnebe. This contention was rejected in the High Court.
For the Applicant, Dr. Michael Forde SC first emphasised that the onus of demonstrating that the Applicant was detained in accordance with law rested on the State. He said that the High Court's finding that the detention had been so justified was irrational. It was substantially based on the identification evidence of the Garda who had dealt with Mr. Nnebe, as he described himself, on his arrival in the State and his identification of this person with the person whom he saw two years later. This he said was implausible. He also...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL