High Court: Attempt to bring habeas corpus application on behalf of category of persons fails

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 597
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Brian Cregan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Brian Cregan opined that the application was more akin to a request for a commission of investigation than a focused habeas corpus enquiry and that in his view, “the constitutional remedy of Article 40.4.2 is not meant to be used for cases such as this”.

Background

The complainant instituted criminal proceedings before the District Court against Mason Hayes and Curran LLP (MHC).

In those proceedings, MHC sought to challenge the validity of a summons issued under section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 (as amended).

The complainant claimed that upon reflecting on the case law mentioned in MHC’s submissions and a report by the Law Reform Commission on search and bench warrants, he concluded that the issue of search warrants under s.26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (as amended) constituted “a far more substantive exercise of judicial power in a criminal matter rendering it unconstitutional”.

In those circumstances, the complainant brought a “habeas corpus” application pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution “on behalf of any person detained on the basis of evidence obtained under search warrants issued by peace commissioners” pursuant to s.26 of the 1977 Act.

Submissions

The complainant alleged that the empowerment of peace commissioners to issue search warrants under the 1977 Act was unlawful where peace commissioners were not judges within the meaning of Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution, were not members of any court established by law and did not take the constitutional judicial oath.

Arguing that peace commissioners could not lawfully exercise judicial power in criminal matters, the complainant distinguished the issuing of a summons under s.10 of the 1851 Act as falling within the “limited-function allowance” of Article 37.1 as an allowable administrative judicial act in non-criminal matters.

Therefore, the complainant contended that any prosecution, conviction or detention founded upon evidence obtained under a warrant issued by a peace commissioner pursuant to s.26 of the 1977 Act was not in accordance with law for the purposes of Article 40.4.2 and should be struck out.

The complainant further alleged that the first part of the enquiry under Article 40.4.2 obliges the High Court to enquire into the complaint by taking proactive steps to ascertain the facts, without a need for the complainant to identify the specific detainees in advance, and that if satisfied that there is an arguable case of unlawful detention, then the second part of Article 40.4.2 grants the court discretion to proceed to a full enquiry which may include directing the Prison Service to produce “the bodies of any persons so detained and to certify in writing the grounds of their detention”.

The High Court

Mr Justice Cregan firstly considered whether the court should consider the application, in circumstances where the complainant had refused to visit the Central Office to obtain a record number for his application on the basis of a previous dispute between himself and the Central Office.

Having regard to the history of habeas corpus applications, the constitutional provisions in Article 40.4.2 and the relevant case law, the judge noted that the answer was “clearly yes” and that there were no specific procedures to be followed in respect of a habeas corpus enquiry, the initiation of such enquiries often being considerably informal.

Turning to the merits of the application, Mr Justice Cregan observed that the application for an Article 40.4.2 enquiry before the court was unusual in that the complainant, self-described as a “citizen of Ireland, greengrocer and Justice Facilitator”, brought the application on behalf of other persons, but agreed with the complainant’s submission that he was entitled to bring the application where Article 40.4.2 provides that a complaint can be made “by or on behalf of any person to the High Court”.

Identifying that the difficulty arising in respect of the complainant’s application was the broad category of persons on whose behalf the application was brought, Mr Justice Cregan considered the meaning of “on behalf of any person” having regard to the submissions of the parties.

The judge opined that an application under Article 40.4.2 must identify “with some degree of specificity the exact person or persons in respect of whom the application is being made”.

Explaining that “one can certainly envisage a situation where an application for habeas corpus could be made in respect of one or more persons or indeed of a group of persons” and “a situation in which the applicant might not have the full names or the exact names of the persons whom they believe are being unlawfully detained”, Mr Justice Cregan highlighted that the problem with the complainant’s application was that it was an application “on behalf of an entire category of persons — all of whose identities are unknown and all of whose places of detention are unknown”.

Finding that the application was too vague and uncertain, the court identified a second difficulty in that it was not clear what that category of persons was, or how it could be ascertained. The court was not persuaded that the complainant’s legal analysis was such as to warrant the opening of a habeas corpus enquiry, finding same to be speculative and uncertain.

Mr Justice Cregan identified a third difficulty with the application, in that insofar as the application related to matters of criminal law, it was reasonable to assume that the category of persons on whose behalf the complainant was purporting to apply had all been tried in a criminal court in respect of their offences and were lawfully detained.

A fourth issue highlighted by the court was that the complainant’s application “seems more akin to a request for a commission of investigation than a focused habeas corpus enquiry”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court refused the application.

McGreal v The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration & Ors [2025] IEHC 597