The High Court rejected an application by Mountjoy Prisoner Eric Keogh for release under Article 40 of the Constitution, finding that his detention was not unlawful on the facts presented. The judgment did not decide whether he qualified for enhanced remission of up to one third of his sentence; it addressed whether his continued detention was unlawful at that time.
Keogh was nearing the end of a six-year sentence. The judgment said ordinary remission of one quarter would put his release at about 3 October 2014. He argued that he should receive enhanced remission under Order 59(2) of the Prison Rules 2007, which allows the Minister to grant more than one quarter, up to one third, where a prisoner’s participation in authorised structured activity supports a finding of reduced reoffending risk and better reintegration.
Keogh had applied for enhanced remission in late November 2013. The Irish Prison Service said it replied on 16 December, asking him to seek a supporting letter from services in the Training Unit. The judge found it not credible that Keogh had not received that reply, and noted that there was no evidence he had taken the application further. The court also considered evidence that Keogh’s temporary release to participate in the Community Returns Scheme was ended after absences and a formal warning. He had also appeared in Blanchardstown District Court in May 2014, charged with offences allegedly committed while on temporary release. The judgment records those as allegations, not findings of guilt.
In July 2014, Keogh’s solicitor wrote to the Governor and then the Minister seeking a decision, arguing that delay left Keogh unlawfully detained. The Prison Service responded that the application required information gathering and review before submission to the Minister. The judge said the solicitor’s deadline of about 48 hours was unreasonable and criticised the application for omitting significant background known to Keogh.
The court distinguished the case from Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison, an earlier High Court decision relied on by Keogh. Given the history of the earlier application and the events during temporary release, the judge could not conclude that Keogh’s detention was unlawful merely because the Minister had not decided the remission application. The judgment said an urgent judicial review might have been the appropriate route to seek a decision, but made no order compelling the Minister to decide the application.
The judge also expressed broader concerns about the lack of clarity in Order 59(2): including whether prisoners must apply, when and how they should do so, and what criteria guide the Minister. The judgment called for consideration of revising the rules to set out a clearer and more transparent process.