Lyons v Governor of the Midlands Prison

• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 5 S.S.P.]
• Judge: Mr. Justice Eagar
• Judgment Date: 07 Apr 2017
• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 235

[2017] IEHC 235

THE HIGH COURT

Eagar J.

[2017 No. 5 S.S.P.]

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 40.4.2 OF THE CONSTITUTION

BETWEEN

KENNETH LYONS

APPLICANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF THE MIDLANDS PRISON

RESPONDENT

Constitution – Art. 40.4.2 of the Constitution – Convictions for attempted robbery and attempt to rob – Unlawful detention – Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.

Facts: The applicant had filed the present application under art. 40.4.2 of the Constitution seeking an inquiry into his detention in prison. The applicant claimed that the warrants of imprisonment under which he was held referred to the offence of attempted robbery contrary to common law, which was abolished, and hence, the applicant's detention was illegal.

Mr. Justice Eagar refused the applicant's application. The Court held that the applicant was not detained in the prison on the basis of warrants alleging robbery. The Court found that the applicant was detained for attempted robbery, which was an offence under s. 14 (1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The Court held that attempted robbery was an incomplete or inchoate offence and the appropriate way to frame a charge of attempt was "attempted to rob contrary to common law."

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Eagar delivered on the 7th day of April, 2017

1 The applicant is a prisoner at the Midlands Prison, Portlaoise, Co. Laois. He is held on foot of two warrants, the first indicating a date of conviction on the 29th of November, 2016 with the Count No. 1 of attempting to rob D.L. contrary to common law. The sentence imposed by the court was one of three years' imprisonment to date from the 10th of March, 2017.

2 The second warrant related to a date of sentence of the 10th of March, 2017 where the offence was of attempted robbery of D.L. contrary to common law and the sentence of the court was that the accused be in prison for a period of five years and six months. This sentence was to date from the lawful expiration of the sentence of three years imposed on the previous warrant with the final four years of the combined sentences of eight years and six months suspended in terms as entered by the accused on this date in court.

3 The accused seeks an inquiry under Article 40 in the following circumstances: he states on affidavit that the warrants of imprisonment under which he is held refer to attempted robbery contrary to...