A.H. v Governor of Castlerea Prison (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses an application pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland concerning the lawfulness of the detention of the Applicant. The Applicant had been remanded in custody by a committal warrant issued by the Special Criminal Court ("the SCC") following a trial that ended on 6 August. The original committal warrant remanded the Applicant until 22 October 2021, the date fixed for judgment. However, the judgment date was extended to 8 November 2021, but no fresh committal warrant was issued for the period after 22 October due to an error. Consequently, the Applicant applied for an order directing his release on 24 October on the basis that his detention after 22 October was unlawful.

On 24 October, an inquiry was directed and the SCC issued a fresh committal warrant before 3:18 pm that day, remanding the Applicant in lawful custody until 8 November 2021. The Assistant Governor of Castlerea Prison certified that the Applicant was held pursuant to this new warrant. The application proceeded despite this development, with the Applicant maintaining that his detention remained unlawful because he was not released before the fresh warrant was served and executed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does a valid committal warrant lawfully detain an applicant who is in unlawful detention immediately prior to its making or execution only if the applicant is first released from unlawful detention?
2. Alternatively, can a valid committal warrant lawfully detain an applicant even where there is no break between the execution of the warrant and the prior unlawful detention?

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that his detention remained unlawful because he ought to have been released from unlawful detention before the fresh committal warrant was served and executed.
• The Applicant argued that the committal warrant should have been served on him only after release, and only then could its execution lawfully commence.
• He further argued that holding him while awaiting transfer to another prison was not part of the execution process and thus not covered by the warrant.

Respondent's Arguments

• The State conceded the Applicant's detention was unlawful between the expiry of the first warrant and the making of the fresh warrant, but argued that from the time the SCC made the fresh committal order, the Applicant was lawfully detained without the necessity of prior release or service of the warrant.
• The State further submitted that the making of the warrant and its execution are legally equivalent in effect, and detention while awaiting transfer to another prison is part of the execution process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed whether a valid committal warrant can lawfully detain a person immediately following a period of unlawful detention without a break involving release. It noted that unlawful detention must result in release or be terminated by a fresh valid committal warrant, but no authority mandates that release is the exclusive method. The court observed that prior case law does not squarely address this precise question but supports the principle that a valid warrant made within jurisdiction may justify detention despite prior illegality.

The court considered the nature of the prior illegality, which was inadvertent and not a conscious or deliberate breach of constitutional rights. The fresh committal warrant was issued to regularise the situation lawfully, and there was no challenge to its validity.

Regarding the execution of the warrant, the court accepted the State's submission that the making of the warrant and its execution are legally equivalent for the purpose of lawful detention, and that detention while awaiting transfer to another prison is part of the execution process. Affidavit evidence confirmed that the Applicant was held exclusively for executing the warrant and was lawfully detained from the time of the warrant's making.

The court also addressed the failure to serve the fresh warrant on the Applicant, finding no procedural or substantive prejudice had resulted. While service would have been preferable, the Applicant's solicitor was aware of the warrant, and the failure to serve did not render the detention unlawful.

Holding and Implications

The court refused the application under Article 40.4.2, holding that the Applicant's detention pursuant to the committal warrant of 24 October 2021 was lawful despite the absence of a release between the prior unlawful detention and the execution of the fresh warrant.

The decision means that a valid committal warrant may lawfully detain a person immediately following unlawful detention without a break involving release, provided the warrant is valid and issued to regularise the detention. The ruling emphasises the importance of considering the nature of any prior illegality and whether constitutional rights are vindicated by the lawful detention. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to these facts. The direct effect is that the Applicant remains lawfully detained under the fresh committal warrant until 8 November 2021.