Larkin, Re Application for Judicial Review [2021] NIQB 66 (02 August 2021)

Larkin, Re Application for Judicial Review [2021] NIQB 66 (02 August 2021)

The applicant's continued detention during the appropriate custodial term of his extended custodial sentence was lawful as it was authorised by the sentencing court and did not breach Article 5 ECHR. The suspension of pre-release testing by the Prison Service during the Covid-19 pandemic was not Wednesbury...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NIQB 66
Parties
Applicant: Michael Larkin; First Respondent: Northern Ireland Prison Service; Second Respondent: Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Article 5 ECHR, Covid 19 Prison Restrictions, Parole, Extended Custodial Sentences, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Judicial Review Article 5 ECHR Covid 19 Prison Restrictions Parole Extended Custodial Sentences +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Larkin

Applicant

Northern Ireland Prison Service

First Respondent

Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to provide pre-release testing (PRT) and the subsequent refusal to direct release on licence was unlawful under public law or Article 5 ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether the suspension of PRT by the Prison Service during the Covid-19 pandemic was Wednesbury unreasonable or breached Article 5 ECHR.
  3. 3 Whether the Parole Commissioners' refusal to direct release solely due to lack of PRT was unlawful or arbitrary detention.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's continued detention during the appropriate custodial term of his extended custodial sentence was lawful as it was authorised by the sentencing court and did not breach Article 5 ECHR. The suspension of pre-release testing by the Prison Service during the Covid-19 pandemic was not Wednesbury unreasonable or unlawful, given the public health context and operational constraints. The Parole Commissioners' refusal to direct release in the absence of sufficient PRT was not arbitrary or unlawful. Article 5 ECHR did not require earlier release or the provision of PRT during the custodial term.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted to the applicant.
  • Declaration that the actions of the Prison Service and Parole Commissioners were lawful.