Doyle v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for an inquiry pursuant to Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution of Ireland, seeking the release of the Applicant on the basis that his detention was unlawful. The Applicant had been remanded in custody by the District Court of The City on several occasions and was not produced before the court as required, primarily due to isolation protocols in The Hospital connected with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Applicant was initially arrested and charged with criminal damage, refused bail, and pleaded guilty. The District Court intended to sentence him promptly but several remand orders were made because the Applicant was not produced for sentencing, either in person or by video link. The Applicant was isolated in a designated isolation block within The Hospital (Block F) due to Covid-19 symptoms and was not produced to court on multiple dates, despite court orders. The Applicant’s solicitor contested the adequacy of explanations for non-production and the failure to utilize video link facilities as permitted under the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.

The Respondent, represented by The Governor of The Hospital, provided affidavits explaining the Covid-19 protocols established to prevent the virus entering prisons, including isolation procedures that precluded production of prisoners in Block F, even by video link. The Respondent acknowledged that video link facilities were not provided in Block F and that the possibility of a mobile video link unit was only investigated after the commencement of these proceedings. The inquiry was heard over several sessions, culminating in a determination that the Applicant’s continued detention was unlawful, leading to an order for his release prior to the expiry of the remand period.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent’s Covid-19 related protocols in The Hospital, specifically the isolation of prisoners in Block F without provision for video link court appearances, unlawfully infringed the Applicant’s constitutional rights to liberty and access to the courts.
2. Whether the District Court’s remand orders, made despite non-production of the Applicant, were lawful under s. 24(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, as amended, and consistent with constitutional principles of proportionality.
3. Whether the High Court, in an Article 40 inquiry, may look behind apparently valid committal warrants to assess the lawfulness of the Applicant’s detention.
4. Whether the Applicant’s detention during earlier periods of remand prior to the last committal warrant could be considered in the inquiry.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that no proper explanation was provided for the failure to produce him to court by video link, despite statutory provisions permitting such means under the 2020 Act.
• It was asserted that the general policy of non-production of prisoners in Block F unduly interfered with constitutional rights, specifically the right of access to courts and liberty.
• The Applicant argued that the Respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the restrictions imposed were proportionate and impaired rights as little as possible.
• The Applicant’s solicitor emphasized that video link facilities could and should have been provided in Block F, including by mobile video link units, but this was only investigated after the application for the inquiry was made.
• The Applicant relied on the principle of proportionality as defined in Heaney v. Ireland, contending the Respondent’s blanket refusal to produce prisoners in isolation was disproportionate.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent justified the non-production on public health grounds, referencing extensive Covid-19 protocols developed to prevent virus entry and transmission within prisons.
• It was argued that the isolation of prisoners in Block F was necessary, and that production by video link was not feasible in that unit due to infection control concerns.
• The Respondent submitted that the District Court’s remand orders were lawful and binding, and that the High Court should not look behind these committal warrants in an Article 40 inquiry.
• The Respondent relied on s. 24(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, to argue that further remands despite non-production were permissible for good and sufficient reasons such as illness or accident, here extended to Covid-19 isolation.
• It was contended that the Applicant’s detention was proportionate and justified, and that the Respondent had acted within the scope of statutory and constitutional powers.
• The Respondent acknowledged in cross-examination that video link facilities might have been possible in hindsight but maintained that the decision was based on legitimate health concerns.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of the facts, statutory provisions, and constitutional principles governing the Applicant’s detention. Central to the analysis was the application of the proportionality test from Heaney v. Ireland, requiring that any restriction on constitutional rights must be rationally connected to a legitimate objective, impair rights as little as possible, and be proportionate in effect.

The court found that the Respondent’s blanket policy of not producing prisoners housed in the isolation unit (Block F) to court, even by video link, failed the proportionality test. The evidence showed that video link facilities were not provided and that the possibility of a mobile video link unit was only considered after the conditional order was granted. The Respondent did not discharge the onus of proving that it was impossible to provide video link facilities in Block F, thus failing to show that the Applicant’s rights were impaired as little as possible.

Statutory provisions, particularly s. 24(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, were interpreted in light of constitutional guarantees. The court held that this section permits further remand only where non-production is necessitated by circumstances beyond the detainer’s control, such as illness or accident, and that the District Judge must be satisfied of such good and sufficient reason. Here, the District Judge expressed dissatisfaction with the reasons for non-production but nevertheless remanded the Applicant, which the court found to be a breach of constitutional rights.

The court rejected the Respondent’s submission that it could not look behind the committal warrants, relying on Supreme Court authority that the High Court may intervene in exceptional cases involving fundamental breaches of rights. The court concluded that the failure to produce the Applicant despite court orders and the absence of adequate justification constituted such a fundamental breach.

The court also addressed the Respondent’s argument that only the current period of detention could be considered, finding that limiting review to the last remand would deny the Applicant any effective remedy and frustrate constitutional protections. The court considered the entire period of detention relevant.

Overall, the court found the Applicant’s detention unlawful due to the failure to comply with court orders for production, the absence of adequate justification, and the disproportionate interference with constitutional rights.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered the release of the Applicant prior to the expiry of the period of detention on 27th May 2021, holding that the detention was unlawful.

The direct effect of this decision is the immediate release of the Applicant. The court’s ruling underscores the constitutional imperative that prisoners must be produced before the court as ordered, and that any restrictions on constitutional rights, including during public health emergencies, must be proportionate and impair rights as little as possible.

No new precedent was established beyond the application and reaffirmation of existing principles regarding the proportionality of rights restrictions, the scope of Article 40 inquiries, and the limits of statutory remand powers. The judgment clarifies the obligation of prison authorities to facilitate court appearances by video link where in-person production is not possible, even in isolation settings.