The High Court has quashed a decision to cancel the remaining scheduled temporary release periods of a prisoner convicted of dangerous driving causing the deaths of eight people. The case will return to the Minister for Justice and Equality for reconsideration under the statutory criteria.
In a judgment delivered on 23 November 2017, Ms Justice Faherty also refused the prisoner’s challenge to the separate decision denying him enhanced remission. The ruling did not grant temporary release or enhanced remission.
The prisoner had been sentenced in 2014 to four years, with the final two years suspended. The Court of Appeal later replaced that sentence with eight years, with the final four years suspended. After positive reports on his progress, he was approved for trial temporary release in February 2017. He returned to prison as scheduled after an overnight release from 17 to 19 February.
The Irish Prison Service then cancelled further scheduled releases. Its Director of Operations said he acted after the Victim Liaison Officer relayed a communication from a victim that raised a concern for the prisoner’s safety. The Director maintained that the negative media coverage following the release was context, not the reason for the decision. The content of the communication was withheld from the court on public interest grounds.
The judge accepted that the Director held a genuine concern, but found the statutory provision cited by the Minister did not cover a potential threat to the prisoner himself. It required consideration of threats posed by a prisoner’s release to members of the public. The court also found the Minister’s continued exploration in April of release at a location other than the family home inconsistent with the stated safety rationale. It concluded the cancellation was unjust because the Minister had not established that the decision was connected to a relevant statutory factor. The court granted certiorari quashing the 22 February 2017 decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
The prisoner also challenged the refusal of enhanced remission, which would have brought forward his release date. Reports described his prison work and courses positively, and the court noted his engagement in structured activities. The decision-maker’s memorandum also recorded the gravity of the offence, a previous dangerous-driving conviction and the increased sentence imposed on appeal. The judge found the application had been considered against the required criteria and that the decision-maker was entitled to weigh those factors. She concluded the refusal, read with its explanation, sufficiently conveyed that the Minister was not satisfied the prisoner met the test for enhanced remission. That challenge was dismissed.