The High Court has refused an application to quash the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision denying a prisoner enhanced remission, finding that the application had been considered in a fair and rational manner.
The judicial review was brought by John Ryan, who challenged a decision communicated on 15 October 2014 refusing remission beyond the standard one quarter. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 6 February 2015, records that Ryan was serving a sentence following convictions for rape and sexual assault. The court was considering the lawfulness of the Minister’s decision-making process, not an appeal against those convictions or a fresh decision on remission.
Under Rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules, enhanced remission of up to one third could be granted where a prisoner had engaged in authorised structured activity and the Minister was satisfied that this made the prisoner less likely to reoffend and better able to reintegrate. The Minister was required to consider specified factors, including the activities undertaken, steps to address offending behaviour, the offence and sentence, conduct in custody and relevant reports.
Ryan argued that he had not been given clear guidance about qualifying activities or offence-focused work, and that his disability and health problems limited his access to prison activities. He also argued that his denial of the offence had led to an automatic refusal without proper consideration of his circumstances. The respondents disputed parts of his account, including claims about access to classes and the library, disciplinary matters and contact with the Probation Service. The judge noted that some factual disputes remained unresolved.
The refusal letter cited the nature and gravity of the offence and the manner and extent to which Ryan had taken steps to address his offending behaviour. The court accepted that a decision-maker could not refuse to consider an application solely because a prisoner denied guilt. But it found that the Minister had considered Ryan’s structured activities, his personal circumstances, information from prison services and his denial of the offence. The judge concluded that the denial was one factor in an individual assessment, rather than the basis for a blanket approach.
The court found that the decision was made by the Minister, that the application received due consideration under Rule 59(2), and that the process was neither arbitrary nor unjust. It held that the weight given to the rule’s factors was for the Minister. The application to quash the refusal was denied; the court did not itself grant or determine any period of enhanced remission.