The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge by John Joe O’Neill to the refusal of further temporary release from Castlerea Prison in May 2016. Ms Justice Faherty found that his existing one-week release had expired and that the decision not to grant another period was not arbitrary, capricious, unjust or irrational.
O’Neill, who is serving a life sentence for murder, had received successive periods of temporary release after a Parole Board recommendation in 2015. His release from 4 to 11 May 2016 required him to return to Castlerea at 11am on the final day. He sought to quash what he described as a revocation and argued that he should have received a hearing before being returned to prison.
The respondents said the release was not revoked: it expired, and the Minister decided not to grant a fresh period. The judge accepted that account. Even if O’Neill arrived shortly before 11am, she said, that did not turn the decision into a revocation. Under the governing legislation, each period of temporary release was a discrete decision and did not create an entitlement to further release.
The court also rejected the claim that fair procedures required a hearing before the fresh-release decision. It distinguished earlier cases involving different release arrangements and found they did not apply to O’Neill’s successive one-week periods. The judge was satisfied that he was told on 11 May why further release was refused. She relied on evidence that he was given reasons by an Irish Prison Service official and the prison governor, as well as his own account of a discussion about probation concerns.
Those concerns were set out in probation reports. They included that O’Neill had not disclosed a relationship with a woman until April 2016, despite earlier questions, and concerns about information that he had sought access to her phone messages. The reports also raised issues about alcohol exposure and the woman’s children. The judge noted that one report wrongly described the undisclosed relationship as a breach of release conditions. She found that error did not make the decision unlawful, given the other concerns before the decision-maker.
The court concluded that sufficient information supported the decision not to grant further release. It dismissed the challenge and denied the relief sought. The judgment did not decide whether O’Neill would receive temporary release in future.