M v The Parole Board

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeClarke C.J.,Irvine P.,MacMenamin J.,Dunne J.,O'Malley J.
Judgment Date30 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] IESC 36
CourtSupreme Court
Docket Number[Supreme Court Appeal No: 180/2018]
Date30 June 2020
BETWEEN:
M.
Appellant
AND
THE PAROLE BOARD AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE & EQUALITY
Respondents

[2020] IESC 36

Clarke C.J.

Irvine P.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

O'Malley J.

[Supreme Court Appeal No: 180/2018]

THE SUPREME COURT

Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme – Recommendation – Costs – Appellant seeking a recommendation for the purposes of the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme – Whether the appellant’s application for a recommendation under the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme was made at an appropriate time

Facts: The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s claim for orders by way of judicial review against the respondents, the Parole Board and the Minister for Justice and Equality ([2020] IESC 24). The Court held that the Minister did not have jurisdiction under s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960 to grant parole to a prisoner who was detained in the Central Mental Hospital on foot of a transfer there from prison. The appellant applied for a recommendation from the Court in respect of the appeal for the purposes of the Legal Aid - Custody Issues Scheme, and for an order reversing the award of costs against him in the High Court and substituting therefor an order of costs in his favour, to be limited to such amount as would have been recoverable had he applied for and been granted the benefit of the Scheme in that Court.

Held by the Court that, so far as the appeal to the Court was concerned, the application for a recommendation under the Scheme was made at an appropriate time (although it is inappropriate to include both a claim for costs and a request for a recommendation in the application for leave). The Court therefore made the recommendation for the purposes of the appeal. The application for the costs of the High Court was, in the view of the Court, entirely misconceived. The Court pointed out that the fact that leave to appeal is granted on the basis of a point of law of general public importance under the constitutional regime does not mean that an unsuccessful litigant is entitled to avoid the normal rules as to costs. The Court held that it is to be hoped that the judgments of the Court will clarify any doubt there may be on the issues of law raised but, again, that is not sufficient for the exercise of an exceptional jurisdiction. The Court noted that the issue in this case was, ultimately, resolved by a reasonably straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation.

The Court made a recommendation in respect of the appeal for the purposes of the Scheme. It saw no reason to interfere with the order for costs in the High Court.

Application granted in part.

Ruling of the Court as to costs delivered on the 30 th day of June 2020.
Introduction
1

In its judgment in this case ( M. v. The Parole Board & Ors. [2020] IESC 24), the Court dismissed the appellant's claim for orders by way of judicial review against the respondents. In brief, the Court held that the Minister for Justice and Equality did not have jurisdiction under s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960 to grant parole to a prisoner who is detained in the Central Mental Hospital on foot of a transfer there from prison.

2

This ruling is concerned with the appellant's application for a recommendation from the Court in respect of the appeal for the purposes of the Legal Aid - Custody...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Elijah Burke v The Minister for Education and Skills
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 24 January 2022
    ...do and to remain within the boundaries of the text which delimits what they are to administer and on what criteria; M v The Parole Board [2020] IESC 36, [76]. Of course, these schemes must respect constitutional rights, including the right to home-school 14 Where bodies such as tribunals an......
  • A.K.R v Minister for justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 May 2022
    ...and to remain within the boundaries of the text which delimits what they are to administer and on what criteria”; M v. the Parole Board [2020] IESC 36, [76]. 20 . I do not accept the applicant's submission that this scheme cannot be given a narrow or restrictive interpretation or that regar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT