|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses habeas corpus application, on the grounds that: the committal warrant was good on its face; the other arguments raised are not matters for a habeas corpus application; and if the prisoner disagreed with the findings of the trial judge, he should have brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Habeas corpus – Article 40 – lawfulness of detention – alleges that he was convicted of assault but that the true wrongdoer was never punished – detention unlawful due to flaws in the initial investigation and arrest, as the appointment of a legal representative who was not a qualified solicitor, and due to the form of the committal warrant in accordance with which he was imprisoned – preliminary issues -professional lawyers, McKenzie friends and representation by a family member - fundamental and important rule that those who do not choose to represent themselves must be represented by a qualified lawyer – prisoner has an acquired brain injury – represented by son - protection for the litigant in person – facts – the offence – procedural history - the extent of the article 40 remedy and the habeas corpus application – the committal warrant – good on its face – first Article 40 enquiry – Circuit Court trial – legal representation – warrant history – pre-trial detention – dismissal application – pot pourri of grounds, only one of which truly addresses the concerns of the Article 40 application - should have appealed to the Court of Appeal –
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
