![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Duffin v. Minister for Justice [1997] IEHC 43 (28th February, 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1997/43.html Cite as: [1997] IEHC 43 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. On
the 25th day of April, 1995 the Applicant pleaded guilty before Wexford Circuit
Court to the unlawful importation of a controlled drug and was sentenced to a
term of 10 years imprisonment, the sentence to run from the 21st day of
December, 1994 with four years of the sentence suspended on terms.
2. On
the 1st November, 1995 the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995 took effect.
Almost immediately by letter to the Minister for Justice dated the 10th day of
November, 1995 the Applicant applied under the provisions of the said statute
for a transfer to a prison in Northern Ireland so that he could be close to his
84 year old father who was in ill health. More or less contemporaneously with
the Applicant's request, the Minister upon the commencement of the material
legislation received 28 other applications for transfers to 6 jurisdictions
both European and North American to serve out sentences ranging from 22 months
to life imprisonment.
3. The
Applicant received a response to his application on February 13th, 1996 in the
following terms:-
4. On
June 27th, 1996 the Prisons Division of the Department of Justice forwarded to
HM Prison Service, H.Q. in the Northern Ireland office:-
5. This
information which is clearly necessary for the operation of a prisoner transfer
under the Council of Europe Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons
done at Strasbourg on the 21st day of March, 1993 has not yet been furnished to
the Department of Justice by the Northern Ireland Authorities.
6. On
the 8th day of October, 1996 the Applicant obtained from Kinlen J. an Order
giving him leave to seek Judicial Review by way of Mandamus reviewing the
Minister's dealing with his application from the stand point of delay. It
would appear from the primary ruling of Kinlen J. that he was not aware of the
Minister's letter of June 27th, 1996 to the Northern Ireland Authorities.
Kinlen J. in making his Primary Order was accordingly unaware:-
7. The
Applicant complains in the first instance of delay in the processing of his
application between the 10th day of November, 1995 and the 27th day of June,
1996.
8. The
Minister in November 1996 was faced with the implementation of a new
jurisdiction of considerable complexity. Immediately upon the coming into
force of the legislation transfers were sought by 28 other prisoners to 6
jurisdictions in two continents.
9. The
documentation which required to be assembled in respect of the Applicant (as
well as 28 others at the same time) included the following:-
10. The
preparation of these documents required various enquiries to be made. To take
just one example the preparation of the Probation and Welfare Reports required
that the Probation and Welfare Officer at Mountjoy Prison make enquiries of her
opposite number in Belfast which would have initiated the preparation of a Home
Circumstances Report on a person and address in Belfast. No doubt the
probation service in Northern Ireland is subject to the same pressures and
demands as the probation service in this jurisdiction.
11. Having
regard to the fact that the Minister already in charge of a Department of State
subject to great pressure was faced with a complicated new jurisdiction being
invoked at its foundation by 29 prisoners contemporaneously and involving
extensive enquiries both inside and outside the jurisdiction, I do not find the
delay between November and June to be unconscionable.
12. Since
June 1996 the processing of the Applicant's application has been held up by
information being outstanding from Northern Ireland. It is not appropriate for
this Court to enquire into or comment on the processing of the Applicant's case
in Northern Ireland.
13. In
perusing documentation emanating from the prison services in both jurisdictions
I detect a will to facilitate the Applicant and I have no doubt that he will
shortly receive his transfer without the intervention of this Court. In the
meantime, his application must be refused.