A man who murdered his ex-girlfriend on church grounds almost 21 years ago had “simply no basis” for claiming that the Court of Criminal Appeal had overturned his mandatory life sentence and substituted a 20-year term in its place, the High Court has ruled.
Rejecting the claim by 44-year-old Raymond Donovan, Mr Justice Garrett Simons on Monday said the challenge had caused distress to the victim’s family, should never have been taken and “did not stand scrutiny”.
Donovan, formerly of New Houses, Cooraclare, Co Clare, strangled his former girlfriend, Ann Walsh (23), to death on the grounds of St Senan’s church, Kilrush, Co Clare on August 24th, 2005.
He launched a High Court bid for his release, claiming that in 2009 the Court of Appeal substituted his mandatory life sentence for one of 20 years’ imprisonment, although he had no detention warrant proving the claim.
READ MORE
At his trial, he denied the murder charge but a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Ennis unanimously convicted him before Mr Justice Paul Carney sentenced him to the mandatory term of life imprisonment in June 2006.
In a High Court application last week, Barry White SC and Patrick O’Sullivan BL, instructed by Daniel Kreith Solicitor, for Donovan, successfully applied to the High Court for permission to inquire into the legality of his detention.
Donovan made the application pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution – also known as “Habeas Corpus” – against the governor of Wheatfield Prison.
In an affidavit, Donovan claimed he has been imprisoned since August 24th, 2005, and was convicted of murder in 2006. He submitted he had unsuccessfully appealed the conviction in 2009.
However, Donovan further submitted that while his appeal was unsuccessful, “the Court of Criminal Appeal substituted my sentence of life imprisonment to one of 20 years”.
He claimed he has had prison records that indicated a 20-year sentence for the murder but had no warrant document to confirm this from the Court of Appeal’s decision.
At the High Court on Monday, Mr Justice Simons dismissed Donovan’s claim, saying it should “never” have been brought before the court. The judge said there was no blame to be apportioned towards Donovan’s legal team.
Mr Justice Simons said it must be “devastating for the family” of Ms Walsh to think that Donovan might be released.
Ms Walsh’s family were present in court, as was Donovan, who was in handcuffs and flanked by three prison officers. The family of Ms Walsh wore T-shirts with “Justice for Ann Walsh” written on them with a photo of Ms Walsh.
Donovan had submitted that “despite numerous requests to prison authorities for sight of, or a copy of, the warrant from the Court of Appeal, there appeared to be no record of this warrant”.
In his submissions, Donovan claimed that “prison authorities do not have the necessary documents that are sufficient to detain me in prison”.
John P Gallagher BL, for the respondent and instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, told Mr Justice Simons that the Central Criminal Court warrant for Donovan’s life imprisonment was an “uncontroversial” document and there was “no other conceivable penalty” other than life imprisonment in this jurisdiction for the murder.
Mr Gallagher said that if Donovan’s position was that there was a document in existence substituting a 20-year sentence for one of life imprisonment on a failed appeal at the Criminal Court of Appeal, it would have been a “landmark event” in Donovan’s life and that he should be in possession of it.
Mr Justice Simons said it was “perfectly clear” the Central Criminal Court could not direct any other sentence than the mandatory life imprisonment for the offence of murder and that there could be “no complaint” regarding the legality of Donovan’s detention.
Mr Justice Simons said the Court of Criminal Appeal had rejected “in its entirety” Donovan’s 2009 challenge against his conviction and that the Central Criminal Court had been “perfectly clear” in its decision.
He said there was “simply no basis” regarding Donovan’s question of legality over his imprisonment and refused the application, saying it “did not stand scrutiny”.
