Ryan v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IECA 202 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Neutral Citation Number: [2018] IECA 202 |
| Date | 21 June 2018 |
[2018] IECA 202
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Edwards J.
Birmingham J.
Mahon J.
Edwards J.
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] IECA 202
Record No: 2017/159
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4.2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND
Unlawful detention – Abuse of process – Contempt of court – Appellant seeking an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution – Whether there was an abuse of process
Facts: The appellant, Mr Ryan, on the 21st of February 2017, by order of a District Court Judge sitting in the Dublin Metropolitan District in Court No 23, Áras Uí Dhálaigh, Inns Quay, Dublin 7 in the said district, was committed to prison for a period of seven days from that date for contempt of court contrary to s. 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act 1871. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court (Noonan J) delivered and made on the 5th of March 2017 in respect of an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, in which that court determined the detention of the appellant to be lawful and refused to direct his release from custody. The appellant appealed on the grounds of abuse of process, the appropriateness of the Article 40 procedure, fair procedures, alleged defects in the warrant of committal, constitutional challenge and the decision on the merits.
Held by Edwards J that he was not prepared to uphold any of the grounds of appeal advanced.
Edwards J held that he would dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court (Noonan J) delivered and made on the 5th of March 2017 in respect of an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland, in which that court determined the detention of the appellant to be lawful and refused to direct his release from custody.
The application for an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 arose out of an order of a District Court Judge sitting in the Dublin Metropolitan District in Court No 23, Áras Uí Dhálaigh, Inns Quay, Dublin 7 in the said district, on the 21st of February 2017, committing the appellant to prison for a period of seven days from that date for contempt of court contrary to s.6 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act 1871 (‘the Act of 1871’). The initial application for an inquiry was made before Noonan J in the High Court at approximately 12.55pm on the 24th of February 2017, and on the basis of the evidence that had been placed before him at that time, the High Court judge was satisfied to open an inquiry and require the detainer (the respondent to this appeal) to produce the appellant before the High Court and to certify in writing the basis on which he was being detained. The matter was made returnable in the first instance for 3pm on the same day, whereupon the appellant was duly produced before the High Court and the respondent duly certified in writing that the appellant was being held pursuant to a warrant of committal, dated the 21st of February 2017, which he exhibited therewith.
The exhibited warrant was in the following form and was signed by the District Court Judge concerned:
‘Form: 25.9 Warrant Of Committal (For Contempt Of Court)
No, 25.9
, r.5
Warrant Of Committal
(For Contempt Of Court)
Dublin Metropolitan District
WHEREAS at a sitting of the District Court being held at Court 23 Aras Uí Dhalaigh Inns Quay Dublin 7 in said district on this day by and before me, Judge Michael Coghlan a Judge of the District Court assigned to the said district, sitting and acting in the said District Court in exercise of the Jurisdiction vested in me and in discharge of my duties as a Judge of the District Court, AT AND DURING the hearing of the cause entitled
Leixlip and District Credit Union, Creditor -v Patrick Ryan Debtor
in which the said Debtor was summonsed for his failure to comply with an Instalment Order
the said person, namely, PATRICK RYAN has in open court
wilfully insulted me + refused to engage with the court
committed a contempt of this Court
as follows:- by (1)
contrary to (3) (section 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1871.)
AND WHEREAS I DO NOW, at the said sitting and acting solely in execution of my duties as such Judge, hereby adjudge that the said person for that contempt be committed to prison for the period of 7 days,
THIS IS TO COMMAND YOU to whom this warrant is addressed to lodge the said person Patrick Ryan of 39 Glendale Meadows Leixlip Co. Kildare
in the prison at Mountjoy North Circular Road Dublin 7 there to be imprisoned for such contempt by the Governor thereof for the period of 7 days from the date of this warrant, and for this the present warrant shall be a sufficient authority.
Dated this 21st day of February 2017
Signed: … Michael Coughlin …
Judge of the District Court assigned to the said district
(signature of Michael Coughlin again appears)’
The initial basis on which an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 was requested, and indeed granted, was an assertion on the appellant's behalf by his solicitor that the appellant had been incarcerated solely because he refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court to hear a claim in a civil matter involving an amount of €38,000 that, in his belief, exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. However, once the High Court had agreed to open an inquiry, and senior and junior counsel were retained on the appellant's behalf, the number of complaints was greatly expanded to include challenges to the validity of the warrant on the grounds that it was duplicitous, failed to particularise the offence of which the appellant had been convicted, and specified an offence unknown to the law. It was also sought to challenge the lawfulness of the detention of the appellant within the four walls of that inquiry on the grounds that he was denied fair procedures in the District Court. In the latter regard it was alleged that he was not informed of the criminal charge against him; that he was not asked how he wished to plead; that there had been no hearing of the charge; that no evidence was led; that he was not allowed to challenge the evidence relied on as supporting the charge; that he was not afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in his defence, and; that the District Court judge had acted as a judge in his own cause and had breached the maxim Nemo iudex in causa sua. In addition, it was alleged that the statutory provision on foot of which the appellant had been convicted, namely s.6 of the Act of 1871, was both unconstitutional and incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, various European Union Directives and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The substantive inquiry proceeded over two days on the 3rd and the 7th of March 2017, at the end of which the High Court found the detention of the appellant to have been lawful and dismissed the appellant's claim for relief under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The appellant now appeals to this Court.
In brief outline, the procedural history of the case before the District Court was that on the 4th of January, 2013, Leixlip and District Credit Union Ltd (‘the Credit Union’) obtained judgment in the Circuit Court against the appellant in a sum of approximately €38,000 and costs. The appellant did not appeal and did not pay the judgment. Consequently, on the 13th of May, 2014, the Credit Union applied to the District Court for an instalment order. The total due by the appellant at that stage was €43,389.01. A summons issued by the Credit Union on the 19th of March, 2014, required the appellant to attend before the District Court for examination as to his means. The appellant did not appear in answer to the summons. Having found that the appellant failed to lodge a statement of means in accordance with the summons, that he had failed to attend for examination in accordance with the summons, that he had refused to submit himself for cross examination by or on behalf of the Credit Union and that he had failed to satisfy the court that he was not able to pay the debt in one sum or by instalments, the District Court then made an instalment order against the appellant ordering him to pay the total due in monthly instalments of €300 each. The appellant did not appeal the order of the District Court.
Despite an instalment order having been made against him, the appellant paid nothing on foot of that order. In those circumstances the Credit Union then applied to the District Court for a summons, as provided for in s. 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1940 as substituted by s.2 of the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act, 2009, directing the appellant to appear before the District Court.
The summons applied for was duly issued. It came before the District Court on four occasions, the 12th of July, 2016, the 13th of September, 2016, the 24th of January, 2017, and the 21st of February, 2017, on which occasions the appellant appeared and represented himself in person. While there is no transcript of what occurred on the first date, transcripts made up from digital audio recordings of the proceedings on each of the three subsequent dates are available. The events that took place during the District Court hearings on all four dates mentioned, culminating in the order for committal for contempt of court at issue in these proceedings, are well summarised by the High Court judge in paragraphs 5 to 14 inclusive of his judgment dated the 3rd of April, 2017, and I am content to adopt that summary.
Having set out a history of the proceedings in the District Court, the High...
To continue reading
Request your trial