Kendall v The Minister for Justice and Equality
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Coffey |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 151 |
| Docket Number | [2017 No. 223 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 13 March 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 151
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Coffey J.
[2017 No. 223 J.R.]
Practice & Procedure – Discovery application – Confidential report – S. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960 – Relevancy and necessity – Public interest privilege
Facts: The applicant sought the discovery of documents or the garda report that was in possession of the respondent by way of an interlocutory application. The applicant contended that he had been given no opportunity to address any concerns arising from the ‘information’ relied upon by the respondent for refusing his temporary release pursuant to s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960. The respondent objected to the discovery of the garda report on the grounds that the applicant had not demonstrated that the discovery was necessary for the fair disposal of the application for judicial review and moreover, the garda report was subject to public interest privilege.
Mr. Justice Coffey refused the application for the discovery of the garda report. The Court held that the application was made purely on hypothetical basis that the garda report might not be founded upon reliable information so that any decision based on it would be tainted by irrationality. The Court noted that the applicant had failed to lay the required evidential foundation for the consideration of the discovery.
This is an interlocutory application for discovery in which the applicant seeks discovery of:
‘The document or record or garda report in the possession of the Minister for Justice/Irish Prison Service setting out “information received from An Garda Síochána” as referred to in the email from Paul Mannering of the 13th January, 2017 and further referred to in the letter from Paul Mannering of the 14th February, 2017 as follows: “the information from An Garda Síochána which was considered in relation to the application. Such reports are compiled and submitted …” and the date and author saying.’
On a date unspecified in the affidavits, the applicant pleaded guilty before the Special Criminal Court to very serious offences which were committed when he was 20 years old on 8th October, 2010 and on 10th February, 2011(whilst he was on bail). The offences involved the unlawful possession of explosives, a firearm and ammunition. Following an appeal against severity of sentence, the Court of Appeal imposed a total sentence of ten years imprisonment in respect of all matters with the last 21 months suspended and backdated to the date on which the applicant entered his pleas of guilty. The sentencing court took account of the applicant's pleas of guilty, his relative youth, and the fact that he entered into a bond to disassociate himself from other dissident republicans whilst in and after his release from prison.
On the 1st March, 2016 the applicant applied for enhanced remission which the Minister refused by letter dated the 16th August, 2016. The letter stated:
‘Whilst it is acknowledged that you have engaged in some authorised structured activity, attending school and completing various computer courses. The Minister having had regard to the nature and gravity of your offences, the lack of offence focussed rehabilitative work and the potential threat to the safety and security of members of the public, is not satisfied that you are less likely to reoffend and are better able to reintegrate into the community.’
On a date prior to the 6th January, 2017 the applicant made an application for temporary release pursuant to s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960, as inserted by s.1 of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003.
By email dated the 13th January, 2017 the Minister refused the application and stated three reasons for so doing. The letter stated that:
‘In reaching this decision, information received from An Garda Síochána, the nature and gravity of the offence and the risk of the person committing an offence during any period of temporary release are the main factors which have been considered.’
By letter dated the 9th February, 2017 the applicant solicitor's requested the Minister to reconsider her decision. The letter challenged the reasoning of the Minister and drew particular attention to the fact that the email...
To continue reading
Request your trial