flawed because it didn't say that he was eligible for release after 18 years, which was part of the original sentence. Article 40.4 of the Constitution says that the High Court has to "look into" complaints from prisoners that they were held illegally. In September 2014, Hogan J. ordered that the prisoners be set free because the warrants were flawed because they "incorrectly" recorded the sentence was for 28 years instead of 18 years and 8 months. Holding of the Supreme Court Seven judges reviewed appeal from the High Court, who all agreed that the warrants were defective, because of the Sweeney decision. The question was whether the warrants could be altered to demonstrate that the sentences under Irish law were for just over 18 years and would start on the day they were arrested in 2001. Concurring The State's appeal was dismissed by the majority of the judges. Laffoy J, MacMenamin J, and O'Malley J all agreed that the High Court could only use section 9 of the 1995 Act to change one or two small parts of the warrants, not the length of the original sentences. Since the sentences given by the English Court were for 28 years and could be overturned after 16 years, the Irish Court did not have the capacity to extend them. MacMenamin J came to the decision that the way the respondents were detained in Ireland was 'fundamentally defective,' so the warrants were void from the start. Laffoy J. agreed with the High Court's reasoning and found that the Minister for Justice had tried to add new conditions to the sentences, which should have happened during the adaptation process before the transfer. Using the trial judge's method, he was under pressure to come to the decision that the changes requested by the Minister, which completely eliminate the "release on licence in the community" portion of the sentence and change, and change, the legal nature and length of the state that handed down the sentence. This required the creation of an adoption order in 2006 and cannot be handled by an order to change the sentence under Section 9. Dissenting In a decision that O'Donnell J, Clarke J, and Denham CJ wrote together, they said that they would have let the State's appeal go through. O'Donnell J. and Clarke J. looked at the Convention's main humanitarian goal, which was to make it easier for