O'Beirne v The Minister for Justice & Anor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 671
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024/3JRP

Between/

Paul O'Beirne

Applicant

and

The Minister for Justice and The Irish Prison Service

Respondents

and

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 671

Record No. 2024/3JRP

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Transfer of prisoners – Reasons – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision to refuse to grant his application for a transfer to an open prison – Whether the decision was capricious, arbitrary or unjust

Facts: The applicant, Mr O'Beirne, on 1 June 2019, was convicted and sentenced for nine years for the offence of facilitating the commission of a serious criminal offence by a criminal organisation, contrary to s. 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. He applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first respondent, the Minister for Justice (the Minister), on the recommendation of the second respondent, the Irish Prison Service (the IPS), and/or An Garda Síochána, referred to in a letter from Mr Twaddle, Operations Directorate of the IPS, dated 22 February 2024, to refuse to grant the applicant’s application for a transfer from prison in Wheatfield Prison to an open prison or temporary release to the Community Return Scheme.

Held by Bradley J that while particular attention was focused on the decision communicated in the letter dated 22 February 2024, it was important to have regard to the entire context of the applicant’s engagement with the IPS in his request for a transfer which included the meeting with Mr Twaddle on 14 November 2023 and his communication with the applicant as to the reasons why his request for a transfer was refused. Citing Lyons v The Governor of Shelton Abbey & Ors [2019] IEHC 426, Bradley v Minister for Justice & Equality & Ors [2017] IEHC 422 and Nash v The Chief Executive of the Irish Prison Services & Ors [2015] IEHC 504, Bradley J noted that the authorities indicated that the standard of review in questions around the transfer of prisoners is whether the decision which is sought to be impugned was “capricious, arbitrary or unjust”. Bradley J did not consider that either the decision of 22 February 2024, or the meeting and communications on 14 November 2023, could be described in any way as capricious, arbitrary or unjust or that either contained any exceptional basis which warranted judicial intervention. Bradley J held that the explanations set out in the meeting between Mr Twaddle and the applicant on 14 November 2023 and the letter dated 22 February 2024 satisfied the requirements to give reasons why the applicant’s request for transfer to an open prison had been refused, set out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31.

Bradley J refused the application for judicial review.

Application refused.

APPEARANCES

56. John F. Hayden SC and Patrick O'Sullivan BL appeared for the Applicant instructed by Daniel Kreith Solicitor.

57. Anne-Marie Lawlor SC and Diarmaid O'Leary BL appeared for the Respondents instructed by the Chief State Solicitors Office.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on 28 ^th November 2025

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1 This is the Applicant's challenge to a refusal on behalf of the Minister for Justice (“the Minister”) to transfer him from prison in Wheatfield Prison to an open prison or temporary release to the Community Return Scheme. The refusal decision which was initially sought to be challenged was contained in correspondence sent to the Applicant from Mr. John Twaddle, Operations Directorate of the Irish Prison Service dated 22 ^nd February 2024.

2 On 1 ^st June 2019, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced for nine years for the offence of facilitating the commission of a serious criminal offence by a criminal organisation, contrary to section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The conviction arose out of the Applicant's provision and disposal of a vehicle used by a criminal organisation in the commission of an offence being the murder of Vincent Ryan on 29 ^th February 2016.

3 The Applicant currently has a remission date of 28 ^th February 2026.

4 The Statement of Opposition is grounded upon the affidavit of Mr. John Twaddle, sworn and filed on 27 ^th January 2025. The following is averred to by Mr. Twaddle in his Affidavit.

5 The Applicant met with Mr. Twaddle, Assistant Principal Officer in the Operations Directorate of the Irish Prison Service on a number of occasions to deal with his request that he be considered for transfer to an open prison facility. His first meeting with Mr. Twaddle was on 18 ^th September 2023. A review meeting in relation to that request was held on 17 ^th October 2023. A further meeting took place between Mr. Twaddle and the Applicant at Wheatfield Prison on 14 ^th November 2023.

Meeting at Wheatfield prison on 14 ^th November 2023

6 At their meeting at Wheatfield Prison on 14 ^th November 2023, Mr. Twaddle states that he informed the Applicant that although the possibility of a transfer to an open prison was discussed at the review meeting on 17 ^th October 2023, it was decided that no such positive recommendation would be made to the Minister.

7 Mr. Twaddle avers that at the meeting on 14 ^th November 2023 he informed the Applicant that no such recommendation was made due to the nature and gravity of the offence for which he was serving his sentence, the threat to the safety of the public, and the Garda view. He states that in the context of the nature and gravity of the offence, he informed the Applicant that the offence related to a gangland murder. He states that in relation to the threat to the safety of the public, he informed the Applicant that if he was to be transferred to an open prison in circumstances where his life was under threat, this would have consequences for the safety of other prisoners, staff and members of the public.

8 In relation to the third matter, the Garda view, Mr. Twaddle states that he informed the Applicant that the Garda view constituted one of the reasons why no positive recommendation was made. He states that the Garda view originated from two responses to questionnaires sent by the Operations Directorate of the Irish Prison Service to An Garda Síochána, the first request for information was replied to on 21 ^st July 2017 and the second request for information was replied to 20 ^th September 2019. Mr. Twaddle states that the information was provided by two distinct named members of An Garda Síochána.

9 Mr. Twaddle avers that the Applicant was not informed of the contents of the Garda view, and he asserts public interest privilege over the contents of the Garda view in circumstances where he states that it was necessary to preserve the confidentiality of this information so as to preserve the channels of communication between the Irish Prison Service and An Garda Síochána. Mr Twaddle states in this regard that if the Irish Prison Service was hindered in its ability to receive confidential information from An Garda Síochána or if An Garda Síochána was forced to become circumspect in what information it provided, it could have serious safety issues both within the prison and the community.

10 Mr. Twaddle states that during the course of this meeting on 14 ^th November 2023, the Applicant confirmed that he was aware that his request to be transferred to an open prison was refused as no recommendation was made to the Minister for Justice. He states that as a result of the meeting the Applicant confirmed to him that he had clear understanding of the situation.

Letter dated 20 ^th November 2023

11 It appears that on 20 ^th November 2023, Mr. Donal O'Gallachoir of the transparency team of the Department of Justice wrote to the Applicant in the care of Wheatfield Prison in relation to “ Minister's reference: – DJE-MO-09805–2023” in response to a communication from the Applicant.

12 Whilst I will return to this correspondence later in this judgment, it stated as follows:

“ Dear Mr O'Beirne,

I refer to your recent letter to the Department of Justice which was received on 4 ^th November, 2023.

Transfer requests are an operational matter for the Irish Prison Service (IPS) for which neither the Minister nor the Department have any role or involvement. It is open to you to speak with the Governor on governor's parade each weekday morning to discuss your sentence management and related matters. To be of assistance, I have relayed your correspondence to the IPS for its information.

I trust the above information clarifies matters.”

Letter dated 22 ^nd February 2024

13 In addressing the preliminary objection/time point which is raised on behalf of the Respondents, it is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the decision which he seeks to challenge was first formally communicated to him in writing in the letter dated 22 ^nd February 2024 from Mr. John Twaddle, Operations Directorate of the Irish Prison Service.

14 This letter was sent to two parties: “ (1) The Governor – to see and transmit” and “ (2) Paul O'Beirne, 107431—to see”, i.e., the Applicant.

15 The letter dated 22 ^nd February 2024 stated as follows:

“ Dear Mr O'Beirne,

I refer to our meeting under Rule 57, and also correspondence received from yourself requesting to transfer to an open prison or temporary release to the Community Return Scheme.

As you are aware you are serving a sentence of 9 years for facilitating the commission of a serious criminal offence by a criminal organisation contrary to the provisions of section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006.

As you may be aware, the Parole Board was established as a statutory body under the Parole Act 2019 on 31 ^st July 2021. This replaced the former Interim Board which had been in place since 2001. Its principal function had been to advise the Minister for Justice in relation to the administration of long-term prison sentences serving an imprisonment for life and those...