A troubled boy has lost a High Court challenge to the constitutionality of provisions of the Children's Act which enabled his detention in Mountjoy Prison at the age of 15 years.
The boy had challenged provisions of the Children's Act, 1908, which stipulated that a court could certify a child's detention in an adult prison if their behaviour was so "unruly" and so "depraved" they could not be detained in children's detention centres.
The boy was detained for one month in Mountjoy Prison arising from charges of the unauthorised taking of a motor car.
In the Children's Court, the trial judge had originally indicated she would order his detention in Trinity House detention centre, but after hearing evidence from Trinity House staff that he had damaged a bedroom and that no remand places were available, she certified him as unruly and he was detained in Mountjoy Prison.
Lawyers for the boy challenged the legality of his detention in the High Court and sought declarations that Section 97.1 and Section 102 of the Children's Act were unconstitutional.
It was asserted that unruliness was an indication of special needs in a child and that imprisonment did not address those needs. It was also argued that the welfare of a child should be the first and paramount consideration for the courts.
The State opposed the application and denied that the disputed sections failed to vindicate the boy's rights under the Constitution, including his rights to bodily integrity.
In a reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Murphy dismissed the challenge on all the grounds advanced. He said similar points had been raised in earlier cases and been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for the State, applied for the costs of the action. Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for the boy, argued against such an order on the grounds the points raised were of some importance and the boy had no means.
Mr Justice Murphy said there was no evidential basis to distinguish this from other cases. He accepted the matter was of some importance but he saw no reasons why costs should not go to the winning party.