The High Court has refused an application to quash the Minister for Justice’s decision denying a prisoner enhanced remission, finding that the decision had not been shown to be arbitrary, capricious or unjust.
The applicant sought certiorari of the refusal, which was communicated in a letter dated 24 June 2015. The letter said the Minister was not satisfied that he was less likely to reoffend and better able to reintegrate into the community. It cited the nature and gravity of his offences, steps taken to address his offending behaviour, potential threat to public safety and a report from An Garda Síochána.
The applicant had been convicted in November 2009 of possessing a shotgun with intent to commit an indictable offence and of several counts of false imprisonment. In March 2010, he received concurrent eight-year prison sentences for the firearms offence and each false-imprisonment count.
He argued that the refusal breached fair procedures and showed the Minister had not considered specific aspects of his application. He also challenged the involvement of the Irish Prison Service Operations Directorate, arguing that the Prison Rules gave it no role. He said the public-safety reference was inadequate and that the Minister should have identified the people at risk and evidence supporting that concern.
The applicant provided evidence of education and training undertaken in prison. This included a letter from the Education Unit’s head teacher stating that he attended classes regularly, completed required work and was planning future study. The court accepted that he had been actively involved in education and training, but said participation in courses did not by itself establish that a prisoner was less likely to reoffend. The Minister could also consider other information and potential risks.
Kearns P. said the Minister’s discretion was broad but subject to court supervision. The court would intervene only if the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unjust. Having considered the applicant’s affidavit, supporting documents and the refusal, the judge found that the reasons had been clearly communicated. The judgment identified the gravity of the offences, the Garda report and potential threat to public safety as factors forming the basis of the decision.
The court refused the relief sought. The judgment therefore left the Minister’s refusal in place; it did not grant enhanced remission.