Liberty Flashcards
Article 40.4.1
No person should be deprived of liberties unless being detained by law or in mental institution
‘save in accordance with law’
Bita v DPP
Appellant charged after urinating in public
‘contrary to public decency’
Argued that this term was ‘hopelessly and irredeemably vague’
Court disagreed
Towson
Just because non-scheduled offence is a stand-alone offence but focused on another offence, this does not mean it was a ‘colourable device’
Murray v Attorney General
Prisoners can rely on:
a) Those that do not depend on continuance of personal liberties
b) Those which are compatible with reasonable requirements of the place where they are imprisoned
Gilligan
A convicted person differs from a ‘person untouched by the legal process’ and a person who has been arrested and detained
Holland
Blanket ban on prisoners communicating with the media was unconstitutional
Devoy v Governor of Portlaoise
Argued solitary confinement breached his right to associate with others
Court disagreed, however the way he was treated was unconstitutional
Article 40.4.2
Right to challenge the legality of detention
Re Royle
Refused to list habeas corpus factors
‘To enumerate them in advance would not be feasible and, in any case, an attempt to do so would only tend to diminish the constitutional guarantee’
Re Woods
New application must be based on new grounds
Re McDonagh
Post-conviction applications will only be allowed where there has been a ‘want of due process’ because of a ‘default of fundamental requirements’
Gilroy v Governor of Mountjoy Prison
The person detaining the applicant is the appropriate respondent to an Article 40 application and is responsible for justifying the detainment
Suspected of suffering from infectious disease and isolated
Personal liberty v danger to general public
Court held it was on foot of legislation and there was a justified reason
AM v HSE
Made a ward of court after balancing constitutional rights and public safety
AC v Cork University Hospital
Treating team became increasingly concerned about the plaintiff’s welfare
They were of the opinion that she would need a high level of post-discharge care as she was not capable of making decisions for herself
Court held that they could not detain her
Court also held that they could not detain her on the grounds of her capacity of decision making
