The Supreme Court has rejected an application by Patrick Eugene "Dutchy" Holland for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention in Portlaoise Prison. Holland was jailed for 20 years in November by the Special Criminal Court for possession of cannabis. During that trial a garda said she believed Holland had murdered the journalist Veronica Guerin. Holland, who made yesterday's application in the Supreme Court himself, said he felt an Article 40 inquiry into his detention was the only speedy remedy available to him.
He said he wanted to fight the constitutionality of what had happened to him in the Special Criminal Court. He said he was entitled to have interviews with gardai recorded and this had not happened. He claimed he had not made certain admissions to gardai which were relied upon to secure his conviction.
"I didn't admit anything," he said. "I am fighting this way because these courts, the High Court and Supreme Court, are the only courts where I figure I have a chance. I was accused of having drugs and I got 20 years for that."
After a seven-day trial at the Special Criminal Court, Holland was convicted on November 27th of having cannabis for sale or supply on a date unknown between October 1st, 1995 and October 6th, 1996. He was subsequently sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. During the trial, Garda Marion Cusack, who arrested Holland at Dun Laoghaire in April last year, told the court she believed he was the man who murdered Veronica Guerin.
Opening his application yesterday, Holland said he had come before the court on constitutional issues and had put in a habeas corpus application. He challenged the validity of the admission into evidence at his trial of admissions made to gardai. He denied making any admissions.
He told the court he had wanted his legal team in the Special Criminal Court trial to appeal to the High Court the decision to allow the admissions into evidence. He claimed they said they could not do that.
Holland said he believed the only chance he had was a constitutional inquiry. He also suggested he might pursue the matter to Europe. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, who was sitting with Mr Justice O'Flaherty and Mr Justice Barron, told Holland that the purpose of an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution was to inquire into the lawfulness of detention. He said that Holland had available to him the remedy of appeal against his conviction and sentence. He had told the court an appeal had been lodged with the Court of Criminal Appeal and that appeal was pending.
The matters relating to the admissibility of evidence considered by the Special Criminal Court would all have to be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Chief Justice told Holland. That court was the proper forum for the determination of those issues.
He told Holland: "You will have to prosecute your appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal in the first instance."
Mr Justice Hamilton told Holland he had conceded he had been convicted and sentenced by the Special Criminal Court. A warrant had been made up by the Special Criminal Court Registrar and conveyed to the Governor of Portlaoise Prison and, as a consequence, his detention in the prison was lawful.
Holland had appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction and sentence but, while his sentence remained in force, he was detained in accordance with the law and was not entitled to an order of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice held.
In reply to Holland, he said a case could be referred to the European Court of Justice only if it raised a point of European law.