A High Court judge has thrown out an attempt by a Dublin man, accused of having possessed an automatic pistol and ammunition, to be released from prison on bail because a solicitor refused to represent him in the District Court. Judge Michael Twomey said he could not ignore the fact that the alleged unlawful detention of Stephen Ennis, of Cashel Road, Crumlin, arose because his solicitor chose not to represent him due to a dispute with the Department of Justice regarding criminal legal aid fees. The judge said there was no criticism of the solicitor for choosing not to act for Ennis in the District Court, where fees are lower, and then opting to act for him the following day in the High Court, where fees could run to thousands of euro.The judge said Article 40 of the Constitution (habeas corpus) was the great bulwark of personal liberty. This provision allows a higher court to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. However, it was not the appropriate remedy for an alleged unlawful detention which came about because of a solicitor picking and choosing when to act for an accused based on what they would be paid.He said Article 40 was not designed for a situation where a solicitor could choose to refuse to act for an accused – a choice which then caused their alleged unlawful detention – and then choose to act for them in the High Court the following day to challenge that alleged unlawful detention.“The remedy of habeas corpus, as the stable bulwark of our liberties, should not be used in this manner,” Twomey said.He said it seemed to the court that the alleged unlawful detention of Ennis arose from the deliberate choice of his solicitor not to act for him one day but to act for him the following day, as the High Court rate of pay was likely to be many multiples of that for the District Court. The judge said the idea that a person alleged to have possessed a semi-automatic pistol should possibly be released under an Article 40 inquiry simply because his solicitor chose not to act for him one day but chose to act the next was very far removed from imprisonment without trial.He said it was the solicitor’s prerogative to choose who they represent, but an alleged unlawful detention because of a solicitor’s financial choice was not a basis for ordering an inquiry under Article 40. In the court’s view, the judge said, the remedy for Ennis was not under Article 40, but to appeal the District Court’s refusal of his bail. The court would not order an inquiry, which could lead to Ennis being released under Article 40, because the court did not believe his alleged unlawful detention was of the type Article 40 was designed to address.Twomey said the solicitor’s refusal to act for Ennis was the very reason why Ennis had not been represented in the District Court. The solicitor had chosen not to represent Ennis for financial reasons because he was not happy with the amount he would be paid under the new criminal legal aid scheme, and that was his prerogative.He said it was not being suggested that the refusal to act in the District Court was related to a plan to get paid more for acting for the same client in the High Court. This was simply a natural consequence of a refusal to act because of a bona fide dispute which was affecting the District Court.The court refused to open an inquiry into Ennis’s alleged unlawful detention.