Ward (application for Habeas Corpus)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice David Barniville |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 333 |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 7 SSP] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 08 June 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 333
THE HIGH COURT
Barniville J.
[2018 No. 7 SSP]
BY
Unlawful detention – Habeas Corpus – Geographical jurisdiction – Applicant seeking an enquiry into the legality of his detention and/or for an order of habeas corpus – Whether applicant's committal warrant had been set at nought as his confinement was outside the geographical jurisdiction of the original sentencing judge
Facts: The applicant, Mr Ward, applied to the High Court for an enquiry into the legality of his detention in the Midlands Prison pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution and/or for an order of habeas corpus. The grounds on which the applicant contended that his detention was unlawful were: (1) he had been sentenced to "internal exile" in the Midlands Prison (on being transferred from Mountjoy Prison) and this had come as a "monumental culture shock" to him; (2) such "internal exile" had been achieved by executive order "without warning or consultation" and without any judicial order; (3) by sending the applicant to "internal exile", his committal warrant had been set at nought as his confinement was outside the geographical jurisdiction of the original sentencing judge; and (4) this "internal exile" was in breach of Articles 5 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held by Barniville J that the applicant had not raised any basis for challenging the legality of his detention in the Midlands Prison and that he had not advanced any basis on which an enquiry should be directed under Article 40.4 of the Constitution or on which a conditional order of habeas corpus should be made. The grounds advanced by the applicant were, in Barniville J's view, spurious. Barniville J held that the manner in which the applicant articulated those complaints demonstrated that they were unmeritorious, frivolous and vexatious.
Barniville J held that he would refuse the applicant's application.
Application refused.
The applicant is at present in custody in the Midlands Prison in Portlaoise, Co. Laois.
On 31st October, 2007 the applicant was sentenced to a period of life imprisonment by the Dublin Circuit (Criminal) Court in respect of his conviction on charges of:-
(1) robbery contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and
(2) causing serious harm contrary to s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
On 16th January, 2012 the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by the Circuit Court on 31st October, 2007 and imposed in lieu thereof a sentence of twenty years imprisonment in respect of the two counts and directed that the sentences run concurrently with each other from 6th October, 2003. The warrant of the Court of Criminal Appeal was addressed to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison and directed the Governor to take the applicant into custody at Mountjoy Prison.
The applicant wishes to apply for an enquiry into the legality of his detention in the Midlands Prison pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution and/or for an order of habeas corpus. He is not legally represented. This is the latest of many such applications brought by the applicant, the most recent of which was dealt with by the High Court (Meenan J.) in a judgment delivered on 23rd March, 2018.
So far as it is possible to discern from the material put before the court by the applicant for the purpose of this application, the applicant appears to be relying on a number of different grounds in support of his application for an enquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution and/or for an order of habeas corpus. However, the material put by the applicant before the court is difficult to follow (both by reason of the applicant's handwriting and by reason of what the applicant actually says). The application is verbose and rambling. Notwithstanding all of this, I believe that I have been able to ascertain the nature of the complaint which the applicant now makes in respect of the validity of his detention in the Midlands Prison.
The applicant relies in support of his application on a signed statement which is undated and unsworn. The applicant has deliberately crossed out the oath on the front page of the form of affidavit to be used by a prisoner who wishes to apply for an enquiry in respect of the legality of his detention or for an order of habeas corpus where that prisoner is not legally represented. The applicant has replaced the word 'oath' with the words 'written complaint'. I shall refer to the applicant's 'written complaint' for the purpose of his application as the 'statement'. The statement was received by the Registrar of the High Court on 16th May, 2018 and acknowledged by the Registrar on 30th May, 2018.
Although judgments on previous applications made by the applicant record the fact of his conviction and sentence by the Dublin Circuit (Criminal) Court on charges of robbery contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and causing serious harm contrary to s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, the applicant's statement in respect of this application only refers to his sentence on the count of causing serious harm.
So far as I can discern from the applicant's statement, the grounds on which the applicant now contends that his detention in the Midlands Prison is unlawful are:-
(1) He has been sentenced to ' internal exile' in the Midlands Prison (on being transferred some years ago from Mountjoy Prison in Dublin to the Midlands Prison in Portlaoise and that this has come as a ' monumental culture shock' to him;
(2) Such ' internal exile' has been achieved by executive order ' without warning or consultation' and without any judicial order;
(3) By sending the applicant to ' internal exile', his committal warrant has been set at nought as his confinement is now outside the geographical jurisdiction of the original sentencing judge; and
(4) This ' internal exile' is in breach of Articles 5 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
I am not satisfied that the applicant has raised any basis for challenging the legality of his detention in the Midlands Prison or that he has advanced any basis on which an enquiry should be directed under Article 40.4 of the Constitution or a conditional order of habeas corpus should be made. The grounds advanced by the applicant are, in my view, spurious and the manner in which the applicant has articulated those complaints demonstrate that they are utterly unmeritorious and are frivolous and vexatious. I set out below my reasons for this conclusion in the context of each of the grounds advanced by the applicant.
The applicant claims that he has been unlawfully detained since 2010. I am assuming that this is the date on which the applicant was transferred from Mountjoy Prison in Dublin to the Midlands Prison in Portlaoise. The applicant submits that his detention in the Midlands Prison amounts to ' internal exile' and that it is a ' monumental culture shock' for him. He says that he has been sent to a county which is 'culturally foreign and alien' to him where the people are ' GAA supporters to a child'. He claims that he has been sent into ' isolated exile'.
As noted above, it appears that the applicant has been detained in Midlands Prison since 2010. In any event, it is clear from previous judgments of the High Court that the applicant has been in Midlands Prison since at least 2012 (see Frank Ward v. Governor of Midlands Prison (Unreported, High Court, Birmingham J., 2012) (2012 No. 937 SS)....
To continue reading
Request your trial