The High Court ordered Edward Ryan’s release from Midlands Prison after finding that his continued detention was not in accordance with law. Mr Justice Barrett ruled on an application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution, following the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to grant additional remission.
Ryan was serving two concurrent six-year sentences imposed in 2010 for firearms offences. His release date, calculated with the standard one-quarter remission, was 24 November 2014. In December 2013, his solicitor applied for remission above one-quarter under Rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules 2007, which allows the Minister to grant up to one-third where a prisoner has shown further good conduct through authorised structured activity and the Minister is satisfied the prisoner is less likely to re-offend and better able to reintegrate.
The application was refused in April 2014. The Minister’s letter said the additional remission would be used “sparingly and in the most exceptional cases” and that Ryan had not demonstrated a reduced risk of re-offending. The prison service also relied on evidence that he had not engaged with a range of services and activities, and cited disciplinary reports and previous convictions.
The judge largely accepted Ryan’s evidence about his prison activities. He had worked full-time in the woodwork workshop, where his performance had been commended, leaving him unable to take part in some other activities. The court noted that he had not been told that prison authorities considered some structured activities preferable to others, although the Prison Rules gave the activities the same stated aim of reducing re-offending or helping reintegration. The judgment also questioned the relevance of some cited services to Ryan’s circumstances.
The court held that the Minister had been given largely deficient information and had failed to consider relevant information about Ryan’s participation. It found that treating additional remission as available only in exceptional cases imposed an irrational restriction on the Minister’s discretion and distorted Rule 59(2). On the information that should have been considered, the judge concluded that Ryan’s participation showed he was less likely to re-offend and better able to reintegrate.
The court said its conclusion did not substitute its view for the Minister’s. It held that remission unjustly refused could make the remaining detention unlawful, and rejected the argument that Ryan should have pursued judicial review or further correspondence first. It then found his continued detention unlawful and directed his release. The judgment does not specify the amount of additional remission to be granted.