Brady v Governor of the Midlands Prison

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant is currently detained in Midlands Prison following a conviction on seven counts of indecent assault contrary to common law on 15th January 2010. On 11th March 2010, the Applicant was sentenced by a Circuit Criminal Court judge to two years imprisonment on each count, with sentences to run concurrently, pursuant to section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. The sentencing judge also directed that the Applicant's name be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years commencing 11th March 2010 and refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The Applicant seeks an inquiry under Article 40.2 of the Constitution into the lawfulness of his detention, alongside declaratory relief. He claims that a prior application for habeas corpus made on 25th March 2011 was not dealt with by the High Court, constituting a breach of his constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 rights. The Applicant also challenges the validity of the committal order and warrant of conviction as fraudulent, vague, and void for uncertainty, and contends that his detention is unlawful because the warrant permits detention only in Mountjoy Prison whereas he is held in Midlands Prison.

The Applicant further asserts he was never before the court on the bill of indictment referenced in the conviction order and disputes that the Circuit Judge ordered his placement on the Sex Offenders Register. He submitted an affidavit in support of his claims and enclosed papers purportedly lodged with the High Court on 25th March 2011.

The Court investigated the existence of the prior habeas corpus application but was unable to locate any related documentation. Upon reviewing the Applicant's exhibited papers, the Court found no legal basis to support the claim that his detention was unlawful.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court's alleged failure to deal with the Applicant's purported habeas corpus application of 25th March 2011 constitutes a breach of constitutional and European Convention rights.
2. Whether the committal order and warrant of conviction are invalid due to alleged fraud, vagueness, or uncertainty.
3. Whether the Applicant's detention in Midlands Prison is unlawful given that the warrant of conviction is directed only to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison.
4. Whether the Applicant's prosecution, conviction, and sentence under section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 were invalid in light of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981.

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McDonough v. Frawley [1978] I.R.	Principles governing conduct of trial and constitutional standards.	The Applicant referenced this case to assert his trial was not conducted in accordance with Supreme Court principles; the Court did not find this claim substantiated in the present application.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the Applicant's claims in light of the statutory and constitutional framework. It noted that section 10(2) of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 repealed section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 but only for offences committed after the commencement of that Act. Since the offences were committed between 1974 and 1976, prior to the 1981 Act, the maximum sentence applicable was that under the 1935 Act.

The Court found that the Applicant's prosecution, conviction, and sentence were valid under the law applicable at the time of the offences. It also concluded that even if the prior habeas corpus application had been properly lodged, the Applicant had no good grounds to argue his detention was unlawful.

Regarding the alleged invalidity and vagueness of the committal order and warrant, the Court observed that the Applicant did not provide a basis for these claims and had not raised them in his first application. The contention that the Applicant was never before the sentencing judge was contradicted by documentary evidence.

The Court further held that the Applicant's detention in Midlands Prison, despite the warrant being directed to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison, did not render the detention unlawful. Prisoner transfers are executive decisions under statutory authority, and no evidence was presented to suggest any irregularity in this regard.

Finally, the Court noted that the Applicant's complaint about the Sex Offenders Register order did not affect the lawfulness of his detention and was not properly before the Court on the current application.

Holding and Implications

The Court refused the Applicant's application for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.

The direct effect is that the Applicant remains lawfully detained in Midlands Prison pursuant to his valid conviction and sentence. No new legal precedent was established, and the Court emphasized that executive decisions regarding prisoner transfers are beyond judicial review in this context.