The High Court has rejected a challenge by Gerard Kelleher to the temporary release restrictions which applied while he was serving a 12-year sentence for serious drug offences.
Mr Kelleher had been sentenced in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in 2016 on six counts, including offences involving possession of drugs for sale or supply. His sentence included 12-year terms relevant to the High Court proceedings.
He applied for temporary release in 2021 and again in June 2024. The Irish Prison Service told him that because of the statutory sentencing provisions applying to his drug conviction, ordinary temporary release was unavailable during the relevant minimum period except for a grave humanitarian reason.
Mr Kelleher argued that this restriction did not apply because the sentencing judge had not separately pronounced a specific minimum term. He contended that section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act required such an express direction before the restriction could operate.
Mr Justice Bradley rejected that interpretation. He held that where the sentencing court imposed a 12-year term under the relevant provisions, that sentence itself constituted the specified minimum term. The statutory provisions therefore restricted temporary release during that period, subject to remission and the humanitarian exception.
Mr Kelleher was ultimately released on February 4, 2025 after receiving enhanced remission. An earlier High Court judgment nevertheless allowed his legal challenge to continue because the issues were not considered moot.
The court also rejected his alternative argument that the temporary release restriction breached constitutional equality, personal liberty or rights protected through the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
Mr Justice Bradley held that the statutory scheme was rationally connected to the legislative objective of responding to the harm caused by drug trafficking and contained safeguards, including judicial flexibility at sentencing, remission provisions and limited humanitarian temporary release.
The court proposed refusing all judicial review reliefs. Costs and consequential matters were left for a later hearing.