The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by M., a life prisoner detained in the Central Mental Hospital (CMH), who sought consideration for parole or other release while he remained there. The Court held that the Minister’s temporary-release power under the Criminal Justice Act 1960 did not apply to prisoners transferred to the CMH under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.
M. pleaded guilty to murder in 2007 and received a life sentence, backdated to May 2006. After several transfers between prison and the CMH for treatment for schizophrenia, he was transferred there in January 2012 and remained detained. The Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board’s reviews had concluded that he required inpatient treatment and should not return to prison.
In 2017, the Parole Board told M. it could not review him while he was in the CMH. The Minister likewise said he could not consider release in those circumstances. M. brought judicial review proceedings, arguing that the statutory power could cover his situation and that excluding him from consideration because of his illness was unequal treatment. The High Court rejected his claim, and he appealed.
Delivering judgment on 12 May 2020, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said the CMH was not a prison or another place covered by the temporary-release provision. The Court held that the provision had not been intended to apply to prisoners transferred there under the 2006 Act. The judgment did not decide that the Minister could refuse to consider any prisoner’s application at will; it explained that the relevant statutory framework determines whether a release power exists in a particular situation.
The Court also held that section 14 of the 2006 Act could apply to M. as a person detained in a designated centre. With the Minister’s consent, the CMH clinical director may direct a patient’s temporary release on appropriate conditions. The judgment described this as a power for limited periods, such as compassionate or recovery-related release; it did not establish a route to long-term parole while remaining in the CMH.
The Court dismissed the appeal. It did not find that M.’s rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, and it made no ruling invalidating legislation. Justice O’Malley noted, obiter, that a suitable future case might argue that the legal framework is unlawful where it offers no prospect of release for a transferred prisoner who needs inpatient care, cannot return to prison, but is not considered too dangerous for an appropriate community hospital. The Court said it could not determine whether a recently designated facility in Portrane would affect M.’s situation.