A convicted rapist is seeking to challenge regulations introduced after his sentencing which make him ineligible for parole.
The 32-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was handed a 10-year prison sentence after being convicted in 2016 on one count of rape which occurred in 2014.
His counsel, Mark Murphy BL, told the High Court the man’s sentencing pre-dated the introduction of the Parole Act 2019 which only permits those serving life sentences to apply for parole after serving at least 12 years.
Under the previous rules, the man would have been eligible to apply for parole in or around September 2020 after serving half of his sentence, said Mr Murphy. Fair procedures are an issue in the case, counsel said, as the man would have wished to make submissions to the sentencing judge if he had known of this law at the time.
Sentence comparisons
He said the man is being discriminated against in comparison to offenders serving life sentences, as he would be eligible for consideration for parole if he had “committed a worse crime and been sentenced to life imprisonment”.
The man is not claiming an entitlement to parole itself, just an entitlement to be considered for it, the court heard. His current intended release date is in November 2023.
The 2019 Act did not come into force until July 2021, and the applicant had made detailed submissions to the now-disbanded Parole Board in October 2020, according to documents before the court.
Alleged progress in prison
This parole application set out the man’s difficult background circumstances and the alleged progress he had made while in prison, including working in the prison laundry and availing of educational opportunities.
The change to the law has rendered the work done in support of his application “sterile and ineffectual”, it is claimed. The applicant is claimed to be a vulnerable individual whose life prospects have been “detrimentally affected by the sudden and arbitrary and discriminatory deprivation of the possibility of parole”, it is claimed.
The applicant is seeking an order quashing the Minister’s alleged refusal to provide any mechanism for the determination of the parole application and/or to make regulations for such.
He also wants various court declarations, including one finding that the Minister’s alleged continuing refusal to make a decision on his parole application and/or to make provision for a decision is “irrational, arbitrary, unfair and unlawful”. He is also seeking damages.
As the case came before the High Court on an ex-parte basis Mr Justice Charles Meenan directed that the Minister be put on notice of the proceedings.
The matter was adjourned to next month.
