The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision not to grant a prisoner enhanced remission, finding the proceedings were brought outside the time limit and that the applicant had not established grounds for the court to intervene.
The judgment, delivered by President of the High Court Kearns on 24 July 2015, concerned an application to quash the refusal of one-third remission and to require the Minister to reconsider it. The applicant had been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for membership of an unlawful organisation. His sentence was backdated to 19 October 2011.
The refusal was communicated by letter on 27 February 2015. The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings on 11 June, shortly before his scheduled release on 18 July. The court said the application was outside the time limit under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. No application to extend the time limit had been made, and no explanation for the delay was offered. On delay alone, the court said it would refuse relief.
The applicant argued that the Minister’s reliance on “limited engagement with authorised structured activity” was irrational because some activities and services listed in the remission application materials were not available to prisoners on E Landing at Portlaoise Prison. He said he had taken part in the activities available to him and argued that prisoners should not have to transfer to access others.
The Minister’s representative said the applicant could have sought accommodation elsewhere in the prison or a transfer to another prison, and that enhanced remission was discretionary. The court noted there was no evidence that the applicant had requested a transfer or sought access to additional services and been refused. It also said he had not been denied all access to structured activities.
The court briefly addressed the argument despite finding the case late. It concluded that the applicant had not shown he engaged with authorised activities to a degree that made the refusal irrational or otherwise justified judicial intervention. It said the threshold for interference with the Minister’s discretionary decision had not been met.
The court refused the relief sought. It noted that most of the other issues raised had become moot after the applicant’s release and did not consider them further.