A jailed robber has lost his High Court challenge to the Minister for Justice's refusal of his request for enhanced remission of his four-year sentence.
Darren Doody (45) was jailed in 2012 over a robbery in which a gang of four masked men tied up a woman with a phone charger cable before ransacking her home in search of money.
Doody, Oriel Street, Dublin 1, had denied falsely imprisoning the victim at Rochford Park, Kill, on October 29th, 2006, but was found guilty after a trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
Doody, who has 14 previous convictions, claimed he was entitled to enhanced remission under the prison rules for good behaviour.
He had completed many educational and training courses and attended the prison’s psychology service, he said.
Public safety
The Minister for Justice refused Doody’s application, which would have led to his early release, due to the gravity of his offence and the potential threat to the safety and security of members of the public.
In his High Court proceedings against the Minister for Justice, Irish Prison Service and governor of Wheatfield Prison, Doody argued he was entitled to one third, rather than the normal one quarter, remission of sentence.
The seriousness of the offence could not act as a bar to additional remission, he argued.
A threat to the public had never previously been suggested and was no basis to refuse his application, it was submitted.
The refusal was based on a confidential report given to the Minister by the Garda concerning the likelihood that Doody would reoffend.
‘Potential threat’
That report said gardaí did not believe Doody was unlikely to reoffend and considered there was “a potential threat to the safety and security of members of the public” in respect of him.
Doody’s lawyers said they were not given the Garda report, which they argued was fundamentally unfair to their client.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said Doody had failed to show the Minister's refusal to grant enhanced remission was unjust or arbitrary.
The Minister gave reasons for the refusal and it was also explained why she declined to divulge confidential information in the report underlying her conclusion of a threat to the safety and security of members of the public, he said.
The Minister, “as a matter of policy”, was entitled to take the view the disclosure of information she had relied upon when making her decision would not be in the public interest, he ruled.
In the absence of any evidence of bad faith by the Minister, the court could not intervene in her decision, he concluded.