Factual and Procedural Background
Several Applicants sought Orders under Article 40 of the Constitution for their immediate release from custody. Prior to 6th November 1996, these Applicants had been remanded in custody by Orders of the Special Criminal Court. These Orders were invalid because one of the three Judges on the Court at the time of the remands was unknowingly no longer a serving member of that Court. This issue was discovered on 6th November 1996, prompting remedial steps by the authorities.
The factual background overlaps with previous cases, notably the Divisional Court's judgment in Hegarty v. The Governor of Limerick Prison and the court's own judgment in O'Hagan and Others v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison. The present judgment focuses on factual and legal points differing from those earlier cases.
On the night of 6th November 1996, most Applicants were detained at Portlaoise Prison, except one Applicant who was at Mountjoy Prison. The court detailed the events surrounding the release of the Applicant at Mountjoy Prison, including instructions from the Department of Justice to release him, the involvement of prison officers, and the circumstances of his arrest outside the prison gate on prison property.
Regarding the other Applicants released from Portlaoise Prison, the court noted their process of discharge through multiple prison gates and confirmed that their arrests also occurred on prison property. The court found that at the time of arrest the Applicants' custody by the prison authorities had ceased, or alternatively, that the arrests were lawful with the consent of the custodians.
The court also addressed allegations of conspiracy by State authorities to maintain unlawful custody and then effect re-arrests. These allegations were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and findings that no unlawful agreement existed.
Finally, the court dealt with an application to set aside a subpoena directed to the Attorney General, concluding that the subpoena should be set aside due to legal professional privilege and lack of relevance to the lawfulness of detention.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Applicants were lawfully detained following invalid remand orders by the Special Criminal Court.
- The legality of the subsequent arrests of the Applicants after their release from custody.
- Whether the locus of arrest on prison property affects the legality of the arrest.
- The validity of allegations of conspiracy by State authorities to maintain unlawful detention.
- The Court’s jurisdiction and grounds for setting aside a subpoena directed to the Attorney General.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- The Applicants argued for immediate release due to invalid remand orders.
- They contended that arrests occurring on prison property were unlawful and significant.
- An allegation of conspiracy was made asserting State authorities unlawfully prolonged detention to enable re-arrests.
- One submission asserted State incompetence warranting the Applicants’ release as a mark of judicial displeasure.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Respondents maintained that the Applicants’ detention following release was lawful, supported by consent of prison authorities to the arrests.
- They rejected the conspiracy allegations for lack of evidence involving key officials.
- They argued that the locus of arrest on prison property does not affect the lawfulness of arrest.
- They opposed the subpoena to the Attorney General on grounds of legal professional privilege and irrelevance.
- They acknowledged the administrative errors but denied these affected the lawfulness of detention.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| The People (DPP) v. Kehoe [1986] I.R. 444 |
Consent of custodian renders arrest lawful even if person is already in custody. |
Supported the court’s finding that arrests with prison authorities’ consent were lawful despite prior custody. |
| Hegarty v. Governor of Limerick Prison (unreported 26th February, 1997) |
Legal determinations concerning invalid remand orders and related custody issues. |
Referenced for overlapping legal principles and factual background relevant to current Applicants. |
| In Re Ó Laighleis 1960 I.R. 93 |
Lawfulness of arrest on custodian’s consent and custody principles. |
Reinforced the court’s conclusion on lawful arrest with consent despite detention status. |
| In Re: Paul Singer (No. 2) (1964) 98 I.L.T.R. 112 |
Locus of arrest on prison property does not affect legality if valid warrant exists. |
Used to reject argument that arrests on prison property were unlawful. |
| The People (DPP) v. Colm O'Shea (1981) 2 Frewen 57 |
Unlawful detention period does not invalidate subsequent lawful arrest. |
Supported the court’s position that prior unlawful detention did not affect arrest legality. |
| The State (Trimbole) v. The Governor of Mountjoy Prison [1985] I.R. 550 |
Cases involving unlawful detention and judicial remedies. |
Distinguished on facts; court rejected Applicants’ argument based on this precedent. |
| Cully v. Northern Bank Finance Corporation Limited [1984] I.L.R.M. 683 |
Jurisdiction to set aside subpoenas on grounds of privilege, irrelevance, or abuse of process. |
Supported the court’s inherent jurisdiction to set aside subpoena directed to the Attorney General. |
| Senior v. Holdsworth Ex-parte Independent Television News Limited [1976] Q.B. 23 |
Principles governing setting aside summonses/subpoenas for privilege or irrelevance. |
Cited in support of court’s discretion to set aside subpoena. |
| S.P.U.C. v. Grogan (No. 3) [1992] 2 I.R. 471 |
Refusal to admit evidence from Attorney General’s office on inadmissibility grounds. |
Analogous authority supporting refusal of evidence protected by privilege. |
| R.v. Lewes Justices Ex-parte The Gaming Board of Great Britain [1971] 2 All E.R. 1126 |
Inherent jurisdiction to set aside witness summons for abuse of process or irrelevance. |
Confirmed court’s inherent power to set aside subpoena in appropriate circumstances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by acknowledging the invalidity of the remand orders due to the improper composition of the Special Criminal Court. It then detailed the factual circumstances of the Applicants’ release and subsequent arrests, emphasizing that the custody of the Applicants by prison authorities had ceased at the time of arrest. The court found that even if custody had not ceased, the arrests were lawful because they were conducted with the consent of the custodians.
The locus of arrest on prison property was considered legally immaterial, supported by precedent stating that the location does not affect arrest legality once restraint by the custodian ends and a valid warrant exists.
The court rejected the Applicants’ allegations of conspiracy, finding no evidence of unlawful agreement or conduct by State authorities. Similarly, the argument that State incompetence should lead to release was dismissed as irrelevant to the lawfulness of detention.
Regarding the subpoena directed to the Attorney General, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set it aside, reasoning that the Attorney General’s evidence was either irrelevant to the detention issue or protected by legal professional privilege. The court left open the possibility of future subpoenas should relevant non-privileged evidence arise, but none were sought.
Ultimately, the court relied on established legal principles and prior case law to conclude that the Applicants’ detention was lawful despite procedural irregularities and administrative errors.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to DISMISS the applications for release under Article 40 of the Constitution.
This ruling confirms that the Applicants’ detention following invalid remand orders and subsequent arrests was lawful. The decision clarifies that arrests carried out with custodial consent and pursuant to valid warrants remain lawful even if prior detention was invalid or the arrest occurs on prison property. The court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed existing legal principles and distinguished this case from others involving unlawful detention with different facts.