Circuit Court judge was within jurisdiction in activating suspended sentence

Criminal law – Article 40.4.2 application – lawfulness of the reactivation of a suspended sentence pursuant to the provision of s. 99 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 – unconstitutionality of the legislation governing suspended sentences – whether there is an error on the face of the Circuit Court Order – whether there was a written Order such as could have given jurisdiction to reactivate the applicant’s suspended sentence – s. 14 of the Courts Act 1971 – Order 12 Rule 2 of the District Court Rules – s. 96 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 – whether the judge was without jurisdiction in revoking the suspended sentence as the requirement on the applicant to keep the peace and be of good behaviour was spent – whether none of the documents relied on by the respondents on their face comply with the provisions of s. 99 (1) and (2) of the 2006 Act – was the applicant’s bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour spent by the time he committed the triggering offences – handwritten document fully meets the requirements of s.99(7) – alleged failure to comply with s.99(2)(b) of the 2006 Act – failure of Judge Moran to impose a condition on the applicant that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the period of his incarceration does not amount to a deficit of the fundamental requirements of justice that the applicant’s detention on foot of the Order made by Judge Riordan may be said to be wanting in due process of law – applicant is not in unlawful detention – Article 40 application refused.