The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court can vary warrants used to transfer sentenced prisoners to Ireland, including to correct the sentences recorded in those warrants. It allowed an appeal by the Governor of Portlaoise Prison against High Court orders concerning three men transferred from England and Wales.
The three respondents pleaded guilty in Woolwich Crown Court in 2002 to offences including conspiracy to cause an explosion and offences related to making or inviting the provision of money for terrorism. They received sentences including 30 years for the conspiracy offence. In 2005, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales quashed the 30-year sentences and substituted 28-year sentences, while affirming the other sentences.
The High Court issued transfer warrants in 2006 stating 28 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy offence, with 12-year terms for the other offences to run concurrently. In 2014, the High Court held the warrants defective and said the detention of each respondent could not be shown to be lawful on the warrants produced. It adjourned the proceedings and gave the Governor liberty to bring a motion seeking to vary the warrants.
The State argued that the sentence entries could be varied under section 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995. The High Court concluded that changing the sentence required “adaptation” under section 7, and that adaptation could only happen when the transfer application was first considered. It therefore held that the sentence could not be changed through the later variation procedure.
The Supreme Court addressed whether section 9 allowed that variation. It agreed that the warrants were defective and that they could no longer be adapted under section 7(5). It held, however, that section 9 gave the High Court power “at any time” to vary a section 7 warrant when appropriate to give effect to the transfer convention. The court treated variation as a distinct later power, alongside the power to revoke a warrant, and concluded it was not limited by the earlier adaptation provisions.
The judgment also agreed that the commencement date on the warrants could be varied, while rejecting the High Court’s view that this power was akin to the procedural “Slip Rule”. The judgment delivered by Chief Justice Susan Denham said the appeal should be allowed and agreed with a joint judgment by Justices O’Donnell and Clarke.
The ruling establishes jurisdiction to vary the warrants. The supplied judgment does not set out a final variation order or determine the resulting sentence entries in these proceedings.