Michael McKevitt loses appeal against refusal of enhanced remission

This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.

Michael McKevitt’s appeal against the refusal of enhanced remission was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 18 June 2015. Ms. Justice Irvine delivered the judgment, sitting with Ryan P. and Edwards J.

The appeal challenged the High Court judgment of Kelly J. dated 9 December 2014, which refused to quash the Minister’s decision under Rule 59 of the Irish Prison Rules 2007. Earlier, on 1 September 2014, Barton J. had refused McKevitt’s application for release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.

McKevitt was convicted on 6 August 2003 of one count of membership of an unlawful organisation under section 21 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, as amended, and one count of directing the activities of an organisation subject to a suppression order under section 6 of the Offences Against the State Act 1998.

He received six years’ imprisonment for membership and 20 years for directing activities. Both sentences ran concurrently from 29 March 2001, when he first entered custody. The judgment gave a prospective release date of 26 March 2016, conditional on his receiving one-quarter remission for good conduct.

His application of 14 July 2014 sought one-third remission, which would have brought his release date to 26 July 2014. In a reply dated 21 July 2014, he relied on his good conduct, disciplinary record and educational achievements, enclosing certificates for authorised structured activities.

McKevitt argued that the Minister’s discretion should be confined to his participation in authorised structured activities and challenged her consideration of other material. The Court of Appeal endorsed Kelly J.’s interpretation of the rules and found that the refusal was not arbitrary, capricious or unjust. It also found that the Minister had not considered information that should have been excluded, and rejected the claim that the Irish Prison Service’s handling of the application undermined the lawfulness of her decision.