McDonagh v Minister for Justice and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kevin Cross
• Judgment Date: 01 March 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 102
• Docket Number: [No. 131 J.R./2012]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 March 2012

[2012] IEHC 102

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 131 J.R./2012]

McDonagh v Min for Justice & Parole Board

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION AND

IN THE MATTER OF HABEAS CORPUS BY JAMES MCDONAGH AT PRESENT IN CUSTODY IN WHEATFIELD PRISON AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI AND/OR AN ORDER OF PROHIBITION AND/OR JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

JAMES MCDONAGH

APPLICANT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY AND THE PAROLE BOARD

RESPONDENTS

CONSTITUTION ART 40

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Liberty

Legality of detention - Article 40 inquiry - Certiorari - Grounds - Insufficient information furnished - Application dismissed (2012/131JR - Cross J - 1/3/2012) [2012] IEHC 102

McDonagh v Minister for Justice and Equality

Mr. Justice Kevin Cross

1 This is an application by a prisoner for what I will take to be an inquiry pursuant to Article 40 into the legality of his detention in Wheatfield Prison or on the alternative for an order ofcertiorari or a judicial review arising out of the applicant's conviction and/or sentence.

"Parole Board told me my conviction was wrong also the Parole Service told me my conviction was wrong due to the serious circumstances I wish to know why I am still in custody."

2. The applicant set out his claim as follows:-

2 3. By a further document, the applicant applied to have "judicial review of my sentence".

3 4. The applicant has not furnished sufficient information to enable the court to inquire into the legality of his detention and/or conviction and/or sentence. The information the applicant has furnished is just not sufficient even to commence such an inquiry.

4 5. If the applicant has concerns in relation to the legality of his conviction and/or sentence and/or continuing detention in Wheatfield Prison, the applicant should obtain legal advice from a solicitor or at the very least should set out the basis why he contends his conviction was wrong or the grounds upon which he proposes to rely.

5 6. In the absence of such further information, the court cannot entertain his application.

6 7. It is to be noted that in the printed form, under the heading of relief sought, the applicant has crossed out an order for certiorari and an order for mandamus and kept in an order for prohibition. This clearly seems an error, the applicant is either seeking a order for certiorari or an inquiry under Article 40 of the...