The Supreme Court allowed Vincent Sweeney’s appeal, quashed the warrant authorising his continued detention in Ireland and directed his immediate release. The judgment explains the reasons for those orders, which the Court had indicated after the appeal hearing.
Sweeney had been sentenced to 16 years by the Crown Court of England and Wales at Canterbury for drugs offences. He was transferred to Ireland to serve his sentence, and a High Court warrant issued on 22 October 2008 authorised his detention. The warrant described the sentence as 16 years’ imprisonment, with 252 days on remand taken into account.
The dispute was how that sentence operated under Ireland’s Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995. The Minister argued that the 16-year sentence continued to apply, subject to Irish rules on remission. Sweeney argued that the English sentencing regime required his release after eight years in custody, leaving the balance to be served in the community on licence and subject to recall.
The Court distinguished the legal nature of a sentence from its administration after transfer. Under the 1995 Act, Ireland continued to enforce the foreign sentence; Irish law governed its administration. But the Court said the Act’s reference to a sentence meant a period of actual imprisonment. It relied on uncontested evidence about the law of England and Wales: for sentences over 12 months, the first half was custodial and release on licence for the second half was automatic. Continued imprisonment after eight years would have been unlawful unless Sweeney was recalled.
No sentence adaptation had been sought or granted under the Act. The Court concluded that the sentence’s legal nature was eight years’ imprisonment followed by eight years in the community under licence and subject to recall. It held that the warrant was incorrect insofar as it specified 16 years’ imprisonment. Because Sweeney had served eight years by the appeal hearing, the Court directed his immediate release.
The judgment left open whether supervision in Ireland could be arranged through an application to adapt a sentence under the Act. It did not decide how such an application should be handled.