The Supreme Court allowed the Governor of Midlands Prison’s appeal against a High Court order directing Edward Ryan’s release. It held that an Article 40 inquiry was not the appropriate way to challenge the Minister’s decision on enhanced remission.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore by Chief Justice Denham on 22 August 2014, concerned a High Court order made on 2 July 2014. The High Court had ordered Mr Ryan’s immediate release and that the Governor pay his costs, to be taxed if the parties could not agree.
Mr Ryan had been sentenced by the Circuit Criminal Court on 30 July 2010 to two concurrent six-year prison terms, running from 26 May 2010. The convictions concerned possession of a high-powered pistol and 15 rounds of ammunition in suspicious circumstances, contrary to the Firearms Act 1964, as amended. The Supreme Court judgment recorded a release date of 24 November 2014 on one-quarter remission.
In December 2013, Mr Ryan’s solicitor sought one-third remission under rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules 2007. The judgment said that remission would have brought his release date to approximately 26 May 2014. The Court described his challenge as an attack on the procedure behind the Minister’s 16 April 2014 decision.
The Supreme Court said the Governor had produced a valid Circuit Criminal Court warrant, which was sufficient to establish the legal basis for detention. The warrant’s validity was not contested. The Court held that a complaint about the procedure leading to the Minister’s remission decision could be examined through judicial review, rather than the immediate constitutional remedy of habeas corpus under Article 40.
It explained that Article 40 may apply where detention involves an absence of jurisdiction, a fundamental denial of justice or a fundamental flaw. It found this case did not meet that threshold: the complaint concerned refusal of enhanced remission, while the underlying sentencing order showed no invalidity on its face. The Court did not decide the merits of the remission complaint or direct an outcome in any judicial review proceedings.
The appeal was allowed. The judgment does not state the Supreme Court’s order on costs.