The High Court has declined to grant relief to a prisoner who challenged the Minister for Justice’s refusal of his application for enhanced remission.
In a judgment delivered on 31 March 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett found no evidence that the Minister applied a blanket policy against granting one-third remission to sex offenders. The court accepted that the prisoner’s application was considered on its merits and refused.
The applicant had received a five-year prison sentence after being convicted of a series of sexual assaults on a child. The sentence was imposed on 17 May 2013. He was expected to be released on 13 February 2017 with the usual one-quarter remission for good behaviour, which the judgment noted is not a legal entitlement.
He had sought enhanced remission under the Prison Rules 2007, which could have reduced his sentence by one-third. In prison, he attended a sex offender programme and received a “low to medium” risk rating for reoffending. The Minister refused his application in a letter dated 15 September 2016, citing the extent to which he had addressed his offending, the seriousness of the offence, public safety and whether he was less likely to reoffend and better able to reintegrate.
The prisoner’s judicial review sought to quash the refusal and obtain other relief, including an order requiring adequate reasons. He argued that the Minister had applied an unduly restrictive or blanket policy because, he said, no sex offenders had previously received one-third remission. The court found no such policy on the evidence. It also rejected claims of arbitrariness, unfairness, a mistaken assessment of his participation in structured activities, or a failure to recognise that the Minister had discretion.
The judgment also rejected an argument that the application had been predetermined. A departmental decision-maker had spoken with the applicant in prison before the application was considered. The court found that the official had said he was not commenting on the application but was unaware of a sex offender who had previously succeeded. It found no basis to conclude that the decision was predetermined.
On the adequacy of the reasons, the court held that the Minister was not required to answer every point in exhaustive detail. It found the refusal gave a suitably reasoned response by reference to the applicant’s circumstances and the relevant criteria. The court stressed that participation in prison programmes was one factor among several and that the Minister was entitled to give significant weight to the gravity of the offending.
The court declined to grant the reliefs sought. The judgment does not order enhanced remission or otherwise change the refusal.