High Court, in a habeas corpus application, refuses to order the release of woman who failed to surrender possession of her family home and was imprisoned for civil contempt following attachment and committal proceedings, finding that: 1) the applicant cannot be represented by a lay person in habeas corpus proceedings; 2) no other party, or the lending bank in this case, is responsible for justifying committal for civil contempt; 3) the applicant had the chance to seek legal representation and chose not to do so; 4) the applicant was not interrupted in making her submissions before the Circuit Court, and any error relating to the notice of change of solicitors in the Circuit Court paperwork does not go to jurisdiction.
Criminal law – Article 40.4.2 – habeas corpus – mortgage debt – contempt – applicant was ordered to surrender possession of her family home – attachment and committal against the applicant for failure to comply with the order for possession – whether an applicant can be represented by a lay person in habeas corpus – representation by lay person – whether the State, or the other party concerned, is responsible for justifying committal for civil contempt – Bank of Ireland Act 1781 – inherent jurisdiction to admit an applicant to bail in the Article 40 inquiry itself – whether the court can require a respondent to put further material on affidavit in the course of the inquiry – alleged failure to afford the applicant the chance to seek legal representation – allegation that applicant was interrupted in making a submission – errors in the documentation – error relating to the notice of change of solicitors does not go to jurisdiction – application refused.