Re Austin
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1998 |
| Date | 01 January 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
- Judicial review - Imposition of special conditions on undertaking to be made prior to temporary release - Applicant challenging imposition of special conditions - Whether conditions interfering with applicant's freedom of expression justifiable - Whether imposition of conditions unlawful or Wednesbury irrational.
The applicant, a member of the Progressive Unionist Party, was detained at HM Prison, The Maze, serving a sentence of ten years' imprisonment for explosive offences. He instituted proceedings for the purpose of seeking judicial review of a decision by the Northern Ireland Prison Service to refuse to extend to him the privilege of temporary release in accordance with r. 27 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland), 1995, unless he undertook to comply with certain written conditions. Those conditions included an undertaking not to return to the prison under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to conduct himself at all times in a 'responsible and lawful manner' and to abide by any special conditions imposed on him. The special conditions precluded him from attending any public meeting, rally or assembly, making any public statement, permitting a statement made by him or on his behalf to be published or broadcast to the public, giving interviews to the press or other media, or engaging in conduct likely to bring the temporary release scheme into disrepute. Those conditions were a direct response to the public outrage expressed from both communities in Northern Ireland at the highly publicised appearance on political platforms of a number of Loyalist and Republican paramilitary prisoners. The applicant challenged the imposition of the additional conditions which, he claimed, were liable to prevent him from participating in a range of activities well beyond those in respect of which the conditions had been originally devised. Held - (1) The court would not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds unless it was satisfied that the decision was unreasonable. When deciding whether that decision was outside the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker, the human rights context was important: the more extensive the interference with human rights, the more the court would require in terms of justification before being satisfied that the decision was reasonable. Dictum of Bingham M.R. in R. v. Ministry of Defence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breathnach v Minister for Justice
...directions. The State (Daly) v. Minister for Agriculture [1987] I.R. 165 distinguished. Cases mentioned in this report:- In re Austin [1998] N.I. 327. Kinahan v. Minister for Justice [2001] 4 I.R. 454. McHugh v. Minister for Justice [1997] 1 I.R. 245. Murray & Murray v. Ireland [1991] I.L.R......
-
Kelly's (Vincent) Application
...provides the NIPS with a wide discretion to grant or refuse a period of temporary release: see, for example, Re Austin’s Application [1998] NI 327 at 329. Indeed, it may be said that the terms in which the discretion are cast could hardly be wider. [16] Rule 27(1), moreover, is plainly inte......