The High Court ordered Edward Ryan’s release from Midlands Prison after finding that his continued detention was not in accordance with law. The court held that the Minister for Justice and Equality had refused additional remission on the basis of deficient information and had wrongly restricted the discretion under Prison Rule 59(2) to “the most exceptional cases”.
Mr Justice Barrett delivered judgment on 2 July 2014 in an inquiry under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution. The case concerned the legality of Mr Ryan’s continued detention after the Minister refused his application for increased remission. The court directed his release; it did not set a specific amount of additional remission.
Mr Ryan was serving two concurrent six-year sentences, imposed on 30 July 2010 for firearm offences. His solicitor applied in December 2013 for remission greater than the standard one-quarter rate and up to one-third. The Minister refused in April 2014, saying Mr Ryan had not demonstrated that he had reduced his risk of reoffending. The Minister’s letter also said the additional remission power would be used “sparingly and in the most exceptional cases”.
The Prison Service’s evidence said Mr Ryan had not engaged with several services and activities, and cited disciplinary reports and previous convictions. The court largely accepted Mr Ryan’s evidence that he had worked full-time in the prison woodwork workshop, had been commended for his performance, and could not attend activities that coincided with that work. It also found that some cited services were not relevant to him or were not shown to have been explained to him. The judgment records that Mr Ryan denied involvement in an alleged feud-related prison disturbance; the court considered information about that allegation deficient to the extent the Minister relied on it.
The court said the Minister should have considered the true extent of Mr Ryan’s participation in authorised structured activities and should not have relied on deficient information. It also found that treating additional remission as an exceptional concession imposed an irrational fetter on the Minister’s discretion. The judgment said that, when the incorrect information was set aside and the relevant information considered, the only logical conclusion was that Mr Ryan’s participation made him less likely to reoffend and better able to reintegrate.
The court concluded that remission unjustly refused in those circumstances tainted the remaining detention with illegality. It rejected the argument that Mr Ryan should have pursued judicial review or further correspondence with the Executive before seeking an Article 40 inquiry. Finding his continued detention unlawful, the court directed his release under the Constitution.