The High Court has refused a declaration that statutory limits on temporary release during minimum prison terms for specified firearms offences are unconstitutional.
Keth Doyle brought the judicial review against the Minister for Justice and other State respondents. He was serving concurrent five-year prison sentences imposed by the Dublin Circuit Court on 10 June 2013: one for possession of a controlled drug and one for possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances under section 27A of the Firearms Act 1964.
Doyle’s request for temporary release to pursue a course of study was refused because section 27C(4) of the 1964 Act barred release during a minimum term, except for a grave humanitarian reason and only for a limited duration justified by that reason. The court had already rejected his non-constitutional grounds in a judgment delivered on 30 July 2015. It heard submissions on the remaining constitutional challenge on 14 October.
Doyle argued that the restriction was disproportionate, affected his rights to personal liberty and equality, and removed executive discretion over temporary release. He said the humanitarian exception was too narrow. The respondents argued that the challenge was confined to section 27C, that its exception meant the restriction was not absolute, and that temporary release was a statutory scheme which could be controlled by legislation.
Kearns P. held that the judicial review was limited to section 27C; the court was not deciding whether section 27A’s presumptive minimum sentences were constitutional. On separation of powers, the court said that even if temporary release were an executive function, legislation could control that discretion. It therefore rejected the claim that section 27C’s restriction made the provision unconstitutional on that ground.
The court also rejected the proportionality and equality arguments. It noted that section 27A sets out the purpose of the presumptive minimum sentences and allows a sentencing judge to depart from the minimum in certain circumstances. It considered that section 27C permits temporary release in certain circumstances, and referred to rehabilitation options within prison and the possibility of enhanced remission. It accepted the respondents’ submission that the restriction was justified in light of the purpose of the sentences and available rehabilitation options.
The court refused the declaration of unconstitutionality. The decision did not determine a challenge to the constitutionality of section 27A.