Singh v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 317
• Docket Number: 2019 No. 544 SS
• Court: High Court
• Date: 16 May 2019

[2019] IEHC 317

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2019 No. 544 SS

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 40.4.2 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Between

KULDEEP SINGH

APPLICANT

– and –

GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISON

RESPONDENT

Unlawful detention – Breach of law – Release – Applicant seeking release from detention – Whether detention was unlawful

Facts: The applicant, Mr Singh, had, since 16 April, been detained at Cloverhill Prison under s. 5 of the Immigration Act 1999. Mr Singh had no issue with the instrument of detention. The focus of his application to the High Court was that his detention conditions did not comply with reg. 19 of the EC (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018, hence his detention was in breach of law and he should perforce be released.

Held by Barrett J that Mr Singh could not rely on reg. 19 because this was an Art. 40 inquiry. Barrett J noted that the respondent, the Governor of Cloverhill Prison, had produced the instrument of detention and that there was no flaw in same or how it was procured.

Barrett J held that Mr Singh’s detention was lawful.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 16th May, 2019.

1 The Governor has provided an affidavit and certificate evidencing that Mr Singh has, since 16 April, been detained at Cloverhill Prison under s.5 of the Immigration Act 1999. Mr Singh has no issue with the instrument of detention. The focus of his application is that his detention conditions do not comply with reg.19 of the EC (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018, hence his detention is in breach of law and he should perforce be released.

2 By way of preliminary remark, the effect of Ryan v. Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54 is that when it comes to all Article 40 inquiries the focus is whether or not there is some invalidity apparent on the face of the documentation pursuant to which a person is detained. Unlike this case, Ryan (Midlands) followed a court order of imprisonment; however, the thrust of the Supreme Court's reasoning in that case is clear, generally applicable, and binding on this Court. As Noonan J. observes in Ryan v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2017] IEHC 207, para 40: ‘[T] he procedure by way of Article 40 is suitable for cases where the instrument of detention is so clearly flawed on its face that it cannot amount to a justification of that detention or the procedure by which it was obtained was so fundamentally defective as to amount to a basic...