Stephen Manning v Governor of Castlerea Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Binchy
• Judgment Date: 06 June 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 343
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 9 SSP]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 06 June 2017

[2017] IEHC 343

THE HIGH COURT

Binchy J.

[2017 No. 9 SSP]

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4.2. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

BETWEEN

STEPHEN MANNING

APPLICANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF CASTLEREA PRISON

RESPONDENT

Constitution – Art. 40.4.2 of the Constitution – Legality of detention – Habeas Corpus – S. 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

Facts: The applicant had challenged the legality of his detention in a prison in the present application. The applicant argued that the learned Circuit Court Judge had terminated the hearing unlawfully as he was not given the opportunity to enter a defence and that the said Court dismissed the prosecution witnesses even before the applicant had finished cross-examining them.

Mr. Justice Binchy dismissed the application. The Court held that the applicant's complaint in relation to the unlawful termination of proceedings and the dismissal of prosecution witnesses could be taken care of by way of a judicial review application and not through an application under art. 40. The Court found that since the applicant was convicted and detained in the prison pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court, the applicant's complaint in relation to the conduct of the District Court proceedings could not be entertained in the present application.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Binchy delivered on the 18th day of May, 2017

1 This is an application made in writing by the applicant and dated the 11th May 2017 whereby he seeks an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention on the grounds that his detention in Castlerea prison is unlawful. The applicant is currently detained in Castlerea prison pursuant to an order made by Judge Ó Donnabhain on 4th May, 2017 following upon the affirmation of an order of the District Court (dated 24th January, 2017) at Castlebar Circuit Court on 4th May, 2017.

2 At Castlebar District Court on 24th January, 2017, the applicant was charged with an offence of engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace might have been occasioned, contrary to s. 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 as amended by s. 22 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2008. The applicant was convicted of an offence under s.6 on that date at Castlebar District Court, and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two months. It was this conviction and order that was affirmed by the Circuit Court on 4th May, 2017.

3 The applicant does not claim that there is any invalidity of the order of the Circuit Court on its face and, having reviewed the order, I am satisfied that the order is good on its face and does not indicate any invalidity.

4 In its decision in the case of Ryan v. Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54, the Supreme Court stated:-

‘ Thus the general principle of law is that if an order of a court does not show an invalidity on its face, in particular if it is an order in relation to post conviction detention, then the route of the constitutional and immediate remedy of habeas corpus is not appropriate. An appropriate remedy may be an appeal, or an application for leave to seek judicial review. In such circumstances the remedy of Article 40.4.2 arises only if there has been an absence of jurisdiction, a fundamental denial of justice, or a fundamental flaw.’

It is not alleged that either the District Court or the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to try the charges brought against the applicant. Accordingly, this application is concerned only with whether or not, on the grounds alleged by the applicant,...