High Court dismisses Tipperary man's challenge against prison detention
Patrick Kinane who has an address at Colman, Fethard, Clonmel is accused of theft offences
A High Court judge has dismissed a legal challenge brought by a Tipperary man who claimed he was unlawfully detained at Cork Prison for nearly two weeks following a district court hearing during which he was not represented by a solicitor because of the dispute over criminal legal aid.
Patrick Kinane initiated High Court proceedings under Article 40.4. of the Constitution seeking to challenge the lawfulness of his detention after his appearance before Clonmel District Court on July 30, to face four charges of theft.
The allegations, which remain before the court, relate to incidents in late July, including an alleged theft at the Showgrounds Shopping Centre in Clonmel. The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that the fresh offences were allegedly committed while Mr Kinane was already on District Court bail.
During a subsequent hearing on August 4, Mr Kinane sought to make a fresh application for bail. However, the presiding judge informed him he could not reapply so soon without a clear "change of circumstances".
Mr Kinane was not represented by a designated solicitor due to the dispute over the criminal legal aid scheme. A stand-in solicitor assisted Mr Kinane by facilitating contact with a Dublin-based solicitor with a view to seeking bail in the High Court..
Mr Kinane was subsequently granted bail on August 10, subject to his compliance with a number of conditions including that he reside at an address in Clonmel and that he stay out of specified retail locations in the town.
Having considered the legal challenge against his detention, Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled he had no option but to dismiss the Article 40 inquiry.
In a written judgment, he explained that because Mr Kinane had been released on conventional High Court bail pending his criminal trial, he was no longer being "detained" at the time of the hearing - on August 17.
The judge declined to deliver an advisory ruling on the lawfulness of the earlier District Court remand, stating that doing so would be moot and an inefficient use of court resources.
“Where, as here, the person has been released on conventional bail pending the determination of the criminal proceedings and does not challenge the bail order, that person is not being ‘detained’ at all,” he wrote.
Regarding legal costs, Justice Simons issued a provisional view that Mr Kinane is entitled to recover reasonable costs for the High Court bail application, but not for the wider challenge against his detention.
Patrick Kinane remains bound by his High Court bail terms pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.