A man sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting publican Charlie Chawke has lost a bid for his release on grounds the word “justice” was left out of certain legislation.
Frank Ward had claimed the omission of the word “justice” from the title of the Circuit Court, under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act and the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961, meant the court which sentenced him was unconstitutional.
The High Court ruled today his claims were groundless.
Ward had applied to the High Court under Article 40 of the Constitution for an inquiry into the legality of his detention.
The 56-year-old father of three, Knockmore Avenue, Tallaght, was sentenced at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in October 2007 for his role in an incident outside Mr Chawke’s restaurant and bar, The Goat Grill, Goatstown, Dublin, on October 6th, 2003. Mr Chawke was seriously injured in the shooting and his right leg was amputated five days later.
Ward was given two life sentences on charges of intentionally causing serious harm to Mr Chawke and robbery of €48,652 in cash and cheques.
In his High Court action against the governor of the Midland Prison, he claimed he should be freed because the court which sentenced him should have been described as the “Circuit Court of Justice” rather than the “Circuit Court.”
Mr Justice John Hedigan today rejected his claim which, the judge said, was based on the proposition that, in the establishment of the courts under the 1961 Acts, no “Court of Justice” was established because the word “justice” was omitted from the formulation of the titles of the courts.
Mr Ward maintained there were no courts of justice in existence established by law as required by article 34 of the Constitution, the judge noted.
All of our trial courts, including the Supreme Court, derive their validity from the Constitution, the judge said. As a matter of fact, the existing courts pre-dated the Constitution in the sense that their structure and jurisdiction were established by the Courts of Justice Act 1924.
When the Constitution was enacted in 1937, one of its provisions (Article 58) provided that the existing courts would remain with the same, the judge said.
The only change brought in by the 1961 Acts, which Mr Ward challenged, was that instead of “Supreme Court of Justice”, “High Court of Justice”, “Circuit Court of Justice” etc, the courts would become known as just the “Supreme Court”, “High Court” etc, the judge said.
This did not change the jurisdiction of the courts and the court which sentenced Mr Ward had full jurisdiction to try all criminal offences, he ruled. Mr Ward’s application was therefore groundless, the judge added.
In 2009, Ward lost another High Court challenge to his detention. In that case, he claimed his detention was unlawful because, following his change of plea from not guilty to guilty at his trial, the trial judge had discharged the jury without asking them to return a verdict. He claimed the jury had to return a verdict.