Judgment: 2012-02-01 · Court archive

Supreme Court judge finds transferred life prisoner unlawfully detained after English tariff expired

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jonathon Caffrey (Applicant)
What

Supreme Court judge finds transferred life prisoner unlawfully detained after English tariff expired

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • England
  • Ireland
  • High Court
  • Supreme Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court has held that Jonathon Caffrey was unlawfully detained in Ireland after the punitive part of a life sentence imposed for murder in England had expired.

The Supreme Court has held that Jonathon Caffrey was unlawfully detained in Ireland after the punitive part of a life sentence imposed for murder in England had expired.

Caffrey was serving a mandatory life sentence imposed by an English court. The trial judge recommended that he serve a minimum tariff of 12 years for punishment and general deterrence. That recommendation was endorsed by the Lord Chief Justice and set by the Home Secretary. The tariff expired on March 24, 2008.

Caffrey had meanwhile transferred to Ireland to serve the balance of his sentence under legislation implementing the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

His case centred on what the legislation calls the “legal nature” of a transferred sentence. Caffrey argued that after the 12-year tariff expired, English law permitted his continued imprisonment solely on the basis of protecting the public from future risk. He said detention for that purely preventative purpose was incompatible with Irish law.

Evidence from English senior counsel David Perry QC established that, after expiry of the tariff, an English Parole Board could continue detention only where necessary for public protection. Release, if directed, would be on licence for life.

Mr Justice Fennelly held that this division between punishment and later preventative detention formed part of the legal nature of the sentence, rather than merely reflecting the sentencing judge’s motivation.

Irish law, he said, does not permit imprisonment solely for preventative reasons. Supreme Court authority established that a person detained purely to prevent possible future offending could challenge that detention under Article 40 of the Constitution.

The court rejected the argument that Caffrey first had to bring separate judicial review proceedings against the High Court transfer warrant. The warrant authorised enforcement of the English sentence according to its legal nature, and inquiry into that nature showed that the remaining detention was incompatible with Irish law.

Mr Justice Fennelly therefore concluded that Caffrey was not lawfully detained and would allow the appeal and order his release.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review