The High Court refused Vincent Sweeney’s application for judicial review, ruling that his continued detention in Ireland under a transfer warrant was lawful and would remain so after 29 March 2014.
Sweeney was serving a 16-year sentence imposed by Canterbury Crown Court in 2006 for drug importation offences. He was transferred from England to Ireland in December 2008 under the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts. The warrant required him to serve the 16-year sentence, with 252 days spent on remand counted towards it.
Sweeney argued that the English sentence was legally made up of eight years in custody followed by eight years on licence in the community. He said his UK conditional release date was 29 March 2014, and contended that continued detention beyond then exceeded the sentence that could be enforced in Ireland. He also argued that the High Court should have adapted the sentence to reflect the licence period and that the later Irish release date breached his right to liberty.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the English court was 16 years’ imprisonment. The UK requirement to release him on licence after serving half the sentence governed how that sentence was administered in England; it did not change the sentence’s legal nature for the transfer warrant. Under the transfer arrangements, enforcement after transfer was governed by Irish law.
The judge said there was no basis to adapt the sentence because a 16-year prison term was not incompatible with Irish law. Consequently, there was no entitlement to a hearing on adaptation conducted like a criminal sentencing hearing.
The Department had informed Sweeney in 2010 that his Irish release date, with remission, was 16 November 2016. The court noted that this meant he was expected to serve about 10 years and eight months of the 16-year term in Ireland, compared with about eight years in custody in the UK. But UK release would have been conditional, with licence conditions and possible recall until 2022; Irish release with remission would be unconditional, subject to good conduct. The judge also noted that Sweeney had sought transfer to be nearer his family and was held in an open prison.
The court concluded that the additional period of detention was not so disproportionate as to breach the European Convention on Human Rights. It made no finding about what information Sweeney had seen before signing his transfer consent: the issue did not determine the application, and the respondents did not rely on consent as a basis for detention. The relief sought was refused.