Gan v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a further application by the Plaintiff for an inquiry under Article 40 regarding the legality of his detention in Arbour Hill Prison. The Plaintiff was convicted on 19th October 2007 at Kilkenny Circuit Criminal Court for an offence of sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired person and sentenced to five years imprisonment, which he is currently serving. The Plaintiff has made at least two previous unsuccessful applications related to this matter. The current application raises new issues and points of law not previously ruled on by the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s detention is unlawful on the basis that he is not the person identified in the prosecution documents due to a name change.
2. Whether the warrants for the Plaintiff’s extradition were invalid.
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing in the Court of Criminal Appeal has been impaired by interference with legal correspondence and threats.
4. Whether the Plaintiff’s detention is unlawful due to the provision of food to which he is allergic and the denial of a requested special diet.
5. Whether interference by a third party attempting to pervert justice warrants the arrest of that person and affects the Plaintiff’s detention.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered each of the Plaintiff’s grounds for claiming unlawful detention. Regarding the claim that the Plaintiff is not the person identified in the prosecution documents due to a name change, the court held that a Deed Poll changing one’s name does not invalidate legal proceedings initiated under the original name. Issues relating to extradition and trial procedure were deemed matters for the trial court and Court of Criminal Appeal, not grounds for an Article 40 inquiry.

Claims of interference with the Plaintiff’s appeal process were noted as appropriate for attention by the Court of Criminal Appeal rather than the High Court in this application.

On the issue of dietary requirements, the court acknowledged that prisoners are entitled to have special dietary needs reasonably accommodated but found no evidence of entitlement to Kosher food or any formal complaints made to prison authorities. The isolated supply of food containing onions, to which the Plaintiff claims allergy, was insufficient to render detention unlawful or justify an inquiry.

The allegation of third-party interference aimed at perverting justice was noted, but the court did not find it sufficient to warrant the requested relief.

Consequently, the court concluded that the application did not establish grounds for an Article 40 inquiry.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Plaintiff’s application for an inquiry under Article 40 concerning the legality of his detention.

The decision directly affects the Plaintiff by denying the requested inquiry and does not establish new legal precedent. The court indicated that some issues raised should be pursued through appropriate appellate or administrative channels rather than by this constitutional application.