Rainey's (Brandon) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Maguire J |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NIQB 98 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 20 October 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NIQB 98
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: MAG10303
Delivered: 20/10/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
2016 No. 34157/01
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BRANDON RAINEY
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FOR NORTHERN IRELAND MADE ON 1 APRIL 2016
________
MAGUIRE J
Introduction
[1] The applicant in this case is Brandon Rainey who was born on 28 August
1996. He is now aged 21 but he was under 21 at the date of sentencing. On 11 March
2015 he was sentenced for offences of (a) rape of a child under 13 (b) attempted rape
of a child under 13 and (c) sexual assault of a child under 13.
[2] For these offences he was sentenced by the Crown Court by means of an
Extended Custodial Sentence (“ECS”) involving a custodial term of two years
followed by an extended period on licence of four years.
[3] As a result of this sentence the applicant became entitled to release on licence
on 1 April 2016. On that day, he was technically released but, later in the day, he
was recalled to prison by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). His period outside the
prison seems to have been in the region of five hours.
[4] In these proceedings the applicant raises two issues: the first is whether his
recall as aforesaid was lawful and the second is whether there is an incompatibility
as a matter of law between Article 28(6)(a) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland)
Order 2008 (“the 2008 Order”) and Article 5(4) of the ECHR.
2
The relevant statutory provisions
[5] There is no dispute that the applicant’s offences for which he was convicted as
set out above are both specified and serious offences for the purpose of Part II of the
2008 Order. At his trial he was found to be a dangerous offender. This meant that
his sentencing was to take place within the context of Chapter 3 of Part II aforesaid.
The sentence deployed by the trial judge is provided for at Article 14 of the 2008
Order. Article 14 is headed “Extended Custodial Sentence for Certain Violent or
Sexual Offences”. It provides:
“(1) This Article applies where—
(a) A person is convicted on indictment of a
specified offence committed after the
commencement of this Article; and
(b) The court is of the opinion—
(i) that there is a significant risk to
members of the public of serious harm
occasioned by the commission by the
offender of further specified offences;
and
(ii) where the specified offence is a serious
offence, that the case is not one in which
the court is required by Article 13 to
impose a life sentence or an
indeterminate custodial sentence.
(2) The court shall impose on the offender an
extended custodial sentence.
(3) ….
(4) …..
(5) Where the offender is under the age of 21, an
extended custodial sentence is a sentence of detention
at such place and under such conditions as the
Secretary of State may direct for a term which is equal
to the aggregate of—
(a) The appropriate custodial term; and
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Larkin's (Michael) Application
...of Appeal, with Treacy LJ giving the judgment of the court, in Re Rainey’s Application [2019] NICA 76. At first instance in that case ([2017] NIQB 98, at paragraph [69]), Maguire J had treated the entirety of an ECS as analogous to a DCS, rejecting the argument that Article 5(4) ECHR was en......
-
Hegarty's (Neil) Application
...nature of these types of adjudication in that they do not attract the full adjudicative panoply. Also, the case of Re Rainey’s Application 2017 NIQB 98 which refers to the broad discretion afforded to a decision maker. I also bear in mind paragraph 48 of the judge’s ruling where he refers t......