McHugh v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1997
• Date: 01 January 1997
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 115 of 1996]
• Court: Supreme Court

McHugh v. Minister for Justice

Michael McHugh

Applicant

and

The Minister for Justice and Others

Respondents

[S.C. No. 115 of 1996]

Supreme Court

Judicial review - Application for leave - Whether release under escort constituting temporary release - Whether temporary release a matter exclusively within discretion of Minister for Justice - Whether leave should be granted - Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1960 (S.I. No. 167), r. 3, sub-r. 1 - Criminal Justice Act, 1960 (No. 27), s. 2.

By s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, the Minister for Justice may make rules providing for the temporary release of prisoners. By r. 3, sub-r. 1 of the Prisons (Temporary Release) Rules, 1960:—

"The Governor or other officer in charge . . . of a prison may, subject to the directions of the Minister and subject to any exceptions which may be specified in directions of the Minister, release temporarily for a specified period a person serving a sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment in that prison."

The applicant had been convicted of capital murder, but his sentence had been commuted to 40 years imprisonment to be served without remission. He was refused leave by the High Court to apply by way of judicial review in respect of the failure of the Minister to grant him a temporary release under escort to visit his mother, who was not in good health. The applicant relied on the fact that a similar concession had been extended to other prisoners.

Held by the Supreme Court (O'Flaherty, Blayney and Murphy JJ.) in refusing the applicant's appeal, that there was no distinction between temporary release in the generally understood meaning of that term and any form of release under escort, and both were a matter exclusively within the discretion of the Minister.

There are no cases referred to in this report.

Appeal against refusal of leave to apply by way of judicial review.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote, and are fully set out in the judgment of O'Flaherty J., infra.

On the 12th February, 1996, the High Court (Carney J.) refused to grant leave to apply for an order of mandamus by way of application for judicial review.

Notice of appeal was filed on the 22nd March, 1996. On the 20th May, 1996, the Supreme Court arranged for the Minister for Justice to be represented. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (O'Flaherty, Blayney and Murphy JJ.) on the 7th June, 1996.

Ex tempore

O'Flaherty J.

The ruling that I give is...