The High Court has refused Michael McHugh’s application for an order compelling the Minister for Justice to reduce his sentence by five months for time spent in custody before conviction. The court also found that his challenge to the handling of a pre-release programme application had become moot after the Minister made a fresh decision during the proceedings.
McHugh was convicted by the Special Criminal Court in 1985 of capital murder and robbery. He had been in custody from 1 July until his conviction and sentencing on 3 December. The court imposed the mandatory death sentence for capital murder and a 12-year sentence for robbery. The death sentence was commuted later that month to 40 years’ penal servitude, which was treated as imprisonment after penal servitude was abolished.
A 2014 letter from the Governor of Portlaoise Prison gave 1 December 2015 as McHugh’s release date with remission. McHugh argued that his release calculation did not account for the five months he spent on remand. He asked the Minister to use statutory powers to commute or remit his sentence to reflect that period, contending that the trial court could not have accounted for remand time when it imposed a death sentence.
The judge accepted that sentencing courts should take pre-trial custody into account, but said any error in sentencing would ordinarily be addressed on appeal. McHugh’s mandatory death sentence meant the remand period could not have affected the sentence imposed, and the court said the appeal process was the route for judicial redress once a sentence had been imposed. The judge found no legal basis to require the Minister to consider or grant a further commutation. The Minister remained free to consider the request, but was not obliged to do so. The application for that relief was refused.
The separate dispute concerned a pre-release programme involving temporary absences from prison. McHugh applied in January 2015. The court found that the application was not formally decided by the Minister at that time and that the initial request was treated as one for a short release period. During the judicial review proceedings, the Minister refused a request for temporary release in July, then made a fresh decision on 30 July refusing access to the programme. The stated reasons included the gravity of the offence and the absence of therapeutic work concerning it.
The judge criticised the respondents’ handling and presentation of evidence about the application, describing it as unsatisfactory and saying the process had wasted court time. The fresh decision made the challenge to the programme’s handling moot. The judge made no further observations on that July decision because McHugh chose to pursue a separate judicial review route. The overall application was refused.