Two prisoners have brought legal challenges saying they must be freed following the High Court’s striking down earlier this week of the law allowing the courts activate suspended sentences.
One of the men has pleaded guilty to a charge under the Domestic Violence Act and is in custody pending a hearing to activate a one year suspended term linked to an earlier sentence for theft.
Both applications, brought under Article 40 of the Constitution, will be heard by High Court judges on Friday. Futher such challenges are considered likely over the coming days.
When the two cases were mentioned to Mr Justice Seamus Noonan on Thursday, Conor Power SC, for the State, said both applications raised similar issues and he wanted time to address those.
The State was dealing with issues arising from Mr Justice Michael Moriarty’s judgment last Tuesday — which declared unconstitutional the law allowing the courts activate suspended sentences — and it needed time for that, counsel said.
Michéal P O’Higgins SC, for one of the applicants, said a remand order was the sole basis for his client’s detention and, arising from this week’s ruling, that appeared to “fall away”.
Mr Power said the legal issues that arose in that particular case may not be as simple as indicated.
Mr Justice Noonan said there are “very significant issues” arising from Mr Justice Moriarty’s decision and the State should have a reasonable opportunity to consider its position.
The judge noted one of the applications was already fixed for hearing before Mr Justice Paul McDermott on Friday and he said the second could also be adjourned to then.
Theft
One of the applicants received a three year sentence in January 2014, with the last 12 months suspended, on a charge of theft.
He had been released having served time in prison but, after pleading guilty earlier this month to a different offence under the Domestic Violence Act, he was remanded in custody to Cloverhill Prison for the purposes of activating the suspended 12 months of the earlier sentence for the theft charge. The activation hearing is listed for April 29th.
Arising from the striking down earlier this week of the revocation powers under Section 99.9 and Section 99.10 of the Criminal Justce Act 2006, the man claims he is unlawfully in custody and the proposed revocation of the suspended part of his earlier sentence cannot proceed.
He claims he is entitled to an inquiry, under Article 40 of the Constitution, into the lawfulness of his detention.
He claims Mr Justice Moriarty’s ruling last Tuesday means the proposed revocation of his sentence is not a valid application because the statutory provisions underpinning it are unconstitutional.
He also alleges the District Court order remanding him in custody pending the revocation hearing is itself invalid because the underlying architecture of Section 99 is unconstitutional. The consequence of this is that his detention is unlawful, it is claimed.
Details of the second application will be outlined on Friday.
