The High Court refused all relief sought by a life prisoner identified as M, who asked it to require the Parole Board and the Minister for Justice and Equality to consider him for parole, remission or temporary release while he was detained in the Central Mental Hospital (CMH).
M pleaded guilty to murder in 2007 and received a life sentence. He was transferred to the CMH in January 2012 under section 15 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 and remained there. The Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board’s June 2017 review said he continued to have a serious, chronic mental disorder requiring inpatient care unavailable in prison. It also said he would likely stop taking necessary medication and use illicit drugs if returned to prison, risking a rapid relapse. The Board declined to recommend his return.
In February 2017, the Parole Board told M it could not review his case while he was a CMH patient. The Department of Justice later said the Minister could not refer his case for parole review while he remained there, but that it would be reconsidered if he no longer needed treatment, returned to prison and engaged with prison services.
M argued that his detention in the CMH did not prevent the respondents from considering release or remission powers. He sought orders requiring them to consider his case, an order quashing the Parole Board’s refusal, and a declaration that his application should be considered in the same way as that of a prisoner in prison.
Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the Minister’s temporary-release power under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960 concerned release from prison. Although M retained prisoner status, he was in the CMH under a separate statutory regime and was not in prison. The court said he could be considered for parole if he were later returned to prison. It rejected the claims that the statutory schemes left a gap or that the Minister had unlawfully fettered his discretion.
The judge also said parole was an executive clemency power, not a right, and that judicial review was limited. He found no evidence that the Minister had acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unjustly. The court refused every remedy sought.
In obiter observations, the judge noted that M’s detention had last been reviewed, according to the court papers, on 22 June 2017, and referred to the statutory requirement for reviews at intervals no longer than six months. He also commented on the Review Board’s stated concern about illicit drugs in prison, while noting its separate finding about M’s mental disorder. Finally, he observed that the regime could deter prisoners from seeking mental-health treatment if they feared difficulty returning to a position where parole was available.