The High Court has refused a judicial review application by Paul O’Shea, who challenged the refusal to grant him remission while serving a fixed 100-day prison term for contempt of court.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered judgment on 19 October 2015. The application concerned Rule 59 of the Prison Rules 2007, which provides for remission of up to one quarter of a sentence for eligible prisoners but excludes a prisoner committed to prison for contempt of court.
The committal arose from civil proceedings brought by George Maloney against Mr O’Shea and Cannon Agri Limited. In December 2014, the High Court ordered Mr O’Shea to give vacant possession of property and not to obstruct Mr Maloney’s efforts to take possession or secure it. The order also restrained him from harassing or interfering with named people and businesses. Mr O’Shea later undertook to surrender possession and not impede Mr Maloney.
On 9 July 2015, the court found Mr O’Shea in contempt for failing to surrender possession and imposed a punitive term of 100 days’ imprisonment, without an opportunity to purge the contempt. A stay was refused. He was arrested and imprisoned on 22 July. The prison authorities intended to release him after the full term on 29 October.
Mr O’Shea argued that, as a prisoner serving a fixed sentence, he should receive the same remission as other prisoners. He also challenged the exclusion under the constitutional guarantee of equality and the European Convention on Human Rights. The respondents argued that remission in contempt cases could interfere with the courts’ authority and the separation of powers.
The judge accepted that the 100-day term was punitive and fixed, but held that it remained a sentence imposed for contempt of court and therefore fell within Rule 59(3)’s exclusion. He said the punitive element did not change the essential nature of the proceedings as contempt proceedings.
The court found no substantive right to remission and no duty on the Minister to provide a remission scheme covering every prisoner. It held that excluding contemnors was reasonable and rational on policy grounds, and that the applicant had not rebutted the presumption that the rule was constitutional. The judge also found that Article 14 of the Convention was not engaged.
The application was refused. The judgment did not alter the 100-day committal order.