This important matter reveals further serious problems in administrative procedures in the courts and highlights the need for urgent action on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to streamline procedures and prevent further errors of this nature occurring.
On 9 April last, I received a letter from a constituent serving a four year sentence in Wheatfield Prison, Clondalkin, Dublin. The prisoner stated that he had made an application for a writ of habeas corpus to the High Court on 1 April 1998, at which time he was in the Curragh Prison, and asked me to inquire why the application had not been heard.
I tabled a written question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform asking the reason for the delay in hearing the application. When I received the Minister's reply, I was greatly surprised to learn that the application had been heard by the High Court on 14 May 1998 and rejected, but the prisoner was not notified of the outcome of his case due to what the Minister described as "an administrative error". In his reply, the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue said that he regarded "such a system failure as very unfortunate" and took "a serious view" of the matter.
The right of any person to contest the legality of his detention by the state, by seeking a writ of habeas corpus, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system and is specifically guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution. I make no judgment on the validity of the application made by the prisoner concerned but I find it absolutely unacceptable that a prisoner should not only have not been informed of the outcome of the case, but does not even appear to have been notified that the application was being heard.
The prisoner comes from a disadvantaged area of Dublin. I cannot help but wonder if he came from a different area or social background, would he have been treated in such a cavalier manner by the court system? While the Minister indicated that the prisoner has now, almost 12 months later, been informed of the outcome of the case, not a word of apology or regret is forthcoming from the Minister in his reply.
While this is clearly not of the same magnitude as the events which led to the dramatic events of the past week, it will add to public concerns about the manner in which the courts are administered. We need a more comprehensive explanation from the Minister as to the reasons for this serious failure in the system and the steps he is taking to ensure that similar events do not occur in the future.
There are a number of issues that arise from this case and the Minister's reply to my question. In his reply, the Minister states: "The applicant was not present or legally represented during consideration of the application and this is the usual procedure". Is he satisfied that it is appropriate that such matters should be decided on the basis of papers only and in the absence of the applicant?
There are also a number of specific questions I would like the Minister to answer when replying. Who was the High Court judge who considered the application? Was any acknowledgement issued in respect of the application when it was received in the central office of the High Court on 6 April, 1998. Why was the applicant not notified that his application had been considered and the application had been rejected? Who is normally responsible for notifying applicants of the result of such cases? Is he satisfied that where an application of this nature is received from a prisoner who is not represented by a solicitor, it is treated by the administrative system of the courts with the same seriousness as an application received from a prisoner with legal representation?
When was this "application by post" procedure for habeas corpus introduced into the prison system? Is it applied only to prisoners who do not have legal representatives? Are applicants in such circumstances informed of their right to be heard in person in the High Court, or is the view of the authorities that there is no such right? Is it not the obligation of a judge of the High Court – even on an ex parte application – to give reasons for his or her decision? If so, what procedures are in place for notifying individuals in the position of this applicant, of the reasons? I know the Minister is taking careful note of all my questions.
A further serious matter arises from this abysmal failure of the administrative system of the courts. As I understand it, the prisoner would have been entitled to appeal the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court within 21 days of the original High Court decision of 14 May 1998. However, as he was not informed of the decision due to a failure on the part of the State, he has been denied the option of appealing the matter to the Supreme Court. What steps does the Minister intend to take to compensate the prisoner for the injustice that has been done to him? I suggest that the very least that the Minister must do is to provide legal assistance to the prisoner, through the Attorney General's scheme or some other mechanism, should he wish to reopen this matter before the courts.
