The High Court has dismissed Michael McKevitt’s application for release from Portlaoise Prison, ruling that his challenge to the Minister’s refusal of enhanced remission should be brought through judicial review rather than under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.
Mr Justice Bernard Barton said the applicant had not challenged the validity of the committal warrant under which he was detained. Applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ryan, the court held that the Minister’s refusal was prima facie valid and that Article 40.4.2 was not the appropriate procedure for examining the complaint. The court dismissed the proceedings.
The judgment did not decide whether the Minister was right to refuse the additional remission. The judge said he would make no further observation, comment or finding on the evidence concerning the remission application or the Minister’s decision. The judgment records that the applicant intended to seek leave for judicial review.
McKevitt was sentenced in 2003 to 20 years’ imprisonment for directing an unlawful organisation. His sentence was backdated to 29 March 2001. Under the ordinary remission described in the judgment, his expected release date was 26 March 2016. If granted the maximum one-third remission available under Rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules 2007, he would have been due for release on 26 July 2014.
He applied for the enhanced remission on 14 July 2014. The Minister refused the application on 11 August. The applicant argued that his good conduct and participation in structured activities meant he qualified for the enhanced remission. The respondent maintained that the Minister could assess the prisoner individually and consider relevant information, including the nature of the offence and matters relating to reoffending risk.
The court noted that amendments to the Prison Rules made on 11 August took effect on 15 August 2014, after the Minister’s decision, and the parties agreed they did not apply to this case. The ruling concerned the procedural route for challenging the refusal; it did not determine the merits of the remission decision or order McKevitt’s release.