Toal's (Mark Patrick) Application (No2)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NIQB 97 |
| Date | 27 November 2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2018] NIQB 97
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC10802
Delivered: 27/11/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARK PATRICK TOAL
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (No 2)
-v-
PAROLE COMMISSIONERS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
________
McCloskey J
Introduction
[1] This judicial review challenge is brought by Mark Patrick Toal (the
“Applicant”), a sentenced prisoner. The Respondents are the Parole Commissioners
for Northern Ireland (the “Commissioners”). The challenge is to a decision of a
panel of Commissioners, dated 09 April 2018, expressed in the following conclusion
signed by the Panel Chair:
“Having considered all of the evidence the Panel concludes that
Mr Toal poses a Risk of Serious Harm to the public and that
the risk he poses cannot be safely managed in the community at
this time. Accordingly we are not satisfied that it is no longer
necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm
that he should be confined.”
[2] The thrust of the Applicant’s case, in brief compass, is that the Commissioners
failed to apply the correct legal test and/or misdirected themselves in law. While the
court’s initial CMD Order divided this illegality challenge in to two parts, I consider
on balance – and without any detriment to the Applicant – that these two elements
2
overlap and are so closely associated with each other that there is in truth a single
ground of challenge, formulated in the terms of the immediately preceding sentence.
[3] Both the Department for Justice (“DOJ”) and the Probation Board for
Northern Ireland (“PBNI”) were considered by the court to have a sufficient interest
in these proceedings to be notified. SOSNI in the event, made no active contribution
either evidentially or by argument. PBNI, in contrast, responded to a specific
invitation of the court to provide specified evidence which the court is grateful to
have received.
[4] The Applicant, in consequence of the impugned decision, remains a sentenced
prisoner. By virtue of the cyclical arrangements for sentence review, there has been
one main development since the initiation of the proceedings in the form of a formal,
further decision of a single Commissioner dated 26 October 2018. This has given rise
to the scheduling of a further hearing before a panel of Commissioners, to be
conducted on 19 December 2018.
[5] I am satisfied that the court’s determination of the main issues of law raised
by the Applicant’s challenge will guide and inform the further proceedings and
decision making processes of the Commissioners in both this case and others,
irrespective of the outcome. There is, therefore, no question of the Applicant’s
challenge having been rendered academic and no suggestion to this effect was
advanced. The two interested parties, DOJ and PBNI will be similarly guided.
[6] This judgment is being provided with considerable expedition having regard
to the underlying timetable noted above, with a view to providing all agencies with
a judicial determination of value and utility. While the court’s treatment of certain
aspects of the evidence may appear a little lean in places, all of the evidence
assembled has been fully considered.
Statutory framework
[7] The Applicant was the recipient of an extended custodial sentence, the two
components being 8 years detention and 2 years licence, imposed on 24 February
2012. He became eligible for release on parole having served one half of his
custodial term, with due allowance for remand custody, on 24 August 2015. In order
to understand the full context of the impugned decision of the Commissioners, it is
appropriate to reproduce at this juncture Article 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern
Ireland) Order 2008 (the “2008 Order”):
“14.—(1) This Article applies where—
(a) a person is convicted on indictment of a specified
offence committed after [15th May 2008]; and
(b) the court is of the opinion—
To continue reading
Request your trial