The Supreme Court allowed Glen Dowling’s appeal and quashed the Minister for Justice’s decision of 23 December 1999 to detain him. The court said any further consideration of ending his temporary release must follow the principles and procedures set out in the judgment.
In a judgment delivered on 22 May 2003, Mr Justice Murray agreed with Mr Justice Fennelly’s judgment and proposed order. He addressed the Minister’s argument that Dowling had been released in successive one-month trial periods, each of which the Minister could refuse to renew at discretion.
Murray said that, in the circumstances, Dowling’s “monthly renewable temporary release” was a general release subject to conditions, rather than a series of separate monthly releases. One condition required him to report on the 23rd of each month at Mountjoy prison and see a Probation and Welfare Officer. Murray said this was consistent with monitoring during release, rather than marking the end of each discrete release period.
The judgment said the release ended after the Minister was informed that Dowling was the subject of a Garda investigation into a serious crime. Dowling had been arrested in connection with an investigation into an alleged offence but was never charged, according to the judgment. Murray cited an earlier Supreme Court decision holding that a charge alone was insufficient reason to revoke temporary release, and said that reasoning applied with greater force where there had been an investigation but no charge.
Murray also stressed that temporary release before a sentence expires is a discretionary privilege, not equivalent to an ordinary citizen’s right to liberty. But an early termination must still comply with essential principles of constitutional justice. Authorities responsible for release may inquire into concerns about a breach of release conditions, including by seeking information from Garda authorities. They may terminate release if, after inquiry, they reasonably conclude on objective material that a condition was breached, subject to an inquiry before a definitive decision.
The ruling addressed the Minister’s 1999 detention decision and set out the process applicable to any further consideration. It did not determine that a later termination decision had been made.