The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Michael McKevitt to the Minister for Justice’s decision not to grant him enhanced remission from his prison sentence.
In a judgment delivered on 9 December 2014, Mr Justice Kelly held that Rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules gave the Minister discretion to refuse remission beyond the ordinary one quarter, even where a prisoner had taken part in authorised structured activities. The Minister also had to be satisfied that those activities made the prisoner less likely to reoffend and better able to reintegrate into the community, he said.
McKevitt applied in July 2014 for the maximum additional remission of one third. He relied on education courses and duties carried out on the E2 landing at Portlaoise Prison, including food safety and cleaning. The Minister refused the application on 11 August, after receiving a recommendation that McKevitt had not completed work to reduce offending behaviour and remained at risk of reoffending. The recommendation also referred to information from prison management, the Probation Service and An Garda Síochána.
The court considered arguments based on earlier High Court decisions in cases involving other prisoners. Those decisions had treated successful participation in authorised activities as sufficient to require enhanced remission. Justice Kelly rejected that interpretation, finding that it would remove the Minister’s discretion and make participation alone decisive. He said the Minister could consider whether the activities had achieved their intended effect and could take account of the information presented in this case.
The judge said there was ample material to support the Minister’s decision, even if the Garda view were excluded. He found no basis to conclude that the decision had been made capriciously, arbitrarily or unjustly.
The court therefore declined to quash the Minister’s decision and refused the judicial review application. It did not order enhanced remission or release. The judgment noted that the Prison Rules had since been amended, but said the amendments played no part in the court’s decision.