The Supreme Court has upheld the refusal of temporary release to Christopher Kinahan while he was serving a four-year prison sentence for receiving stolen cheques.
Kinahan was committed to Mountjoy Prison in March 1998, transferred to Portlaoise Prison a year later and moved to the Training Unit at Glengarriff Parade in July 2000. He was due for release on March 8, 2001.
The case concerned an application for temporary release made on March 27, 2000 and refused by the Minister for Justice in a letter dated May 26, 2000. Kinahan argued that the refusal did not contain adequate reasons, that the criteria being applied were deficient and that the decision was irrational and discriminatory.
Mr Justice Hardiman rejected those arguments. The refusal letter identified six considerations used to assess temporary-release applications, including the nature of the offence, risk to the community, time already served, behaviour in custody, the remaining sentence and any compassionate circumstances.
The substantive reason given for refusing Kinahan's application was that it was too early in his sentence for temporary release. The letter also informed him that his transfer to the Training Unit had been approved and suggested engagement with therapeutic and probation services before his case was reviewed again.
The Supreme Court held that decisions on temporary release are principally matters for the executive branch. Courts may intervene where such powers are exercised capriciously, arbitrarily or unjustly, but cannot substitute their own assessment merely because they might have reached a different conclusion.
The court also rejected Kinahan's reliance on Council of Europe recommendations. Those recommendations were not legally binding and did not create a presumption that a prisoner was entitled to temporary release.
No discriminatory application of the temporary-release criteria was established. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order refusing Kinahan's challenge was affirmed.