User:RGUS18/sandbox

Kinahan v Minister for justice 2001 4IR 454 IESC 16 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court that confirmed that the Minister for Justice was entitled to deny Mr. Kinahan temporary release from prison. This case was an appeal case from the High Court decision to deny temporary release for Mr. Kinahan. Judge Geoghegan of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Background
The defendant was serving a four year sentence for receiving stolen cheques. He was first committed to Mountjoy prison on the 4th March, 1998. He was subsequently moved to Portlaoise Prison on the 4th March, 1999 and lastly moved to the Training Unit in Glengarriff Parade on the 6th July, 2000.

Mr.Kinahan made a number of applications for temporary release from prison. In November 2000, one of these applications was accepted, while a further submission was pending. The present proceedings relate to an earlier application which was made on the 27th March, 2000 and was refused by letter that was dated the 26th May, 2000.

The applicant appeal on the grounds that the letter of refusal did not include sufficient reasoning. He claimed the reasoning 'had been come to in an irrational or unreasonable fashion; that the criteria set out in that letter for the granting of temporary relief were themselves inadequate and inconsistent with modern penal policy including policies to which the State, through the Council of Europe, has adhered; and that the criteria were being applied in a discriminatory fashion.'

Holding of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the applicant received adequate reasoning for the denial of temporary release.

Geoghegan J of the Supreme Court denied this appeal based on 'the letter properly set out the six criteria used to assess applications for temporary release. These are:-

(a) The nature of the offence

(b) Whether the granting of temporary release would constitute a threat to the community,

(c) The length of time spent in custody,

(d) The behaviour of the offender while in custody,

(e) The remainder of the sentence left to serve,

(f) Whether there are any compassionate grounds which merits special consideration”.

Geoghegan J concluded 'I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of the learned High Court judge'.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

What belongs here:
On September 11th, 1997, a summons was issued charging a former guard, Mr. Padraic Grealis with the assault of Margaret and Francis Sweeny on May 4th, 1997. On September 12th, proceedings were commenced against Mr. Grealis alleging unlawful assault on Mr. Christopher McGinty on May 11th, 1997.

Mr.Grealis contested his conviction on the grounds that what he was charged for is a common law offence and not a statutory under Irish Law. The offences of common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm were abolished by section 28 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act,1997. Because Mr.Grealis comitted this crime at the time of the abolishing of the sections on assault it is argued that his arrest and prosecution is void.

Holding of the Supreme Court
'In Grealis, I would allow the appeal by the Attorney General against the finding of the learned High Court judge that the 1997 Interpretation Act was invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. I would dismiss the appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions against the order of the High Court granting the relief sought by way of prohibition, and would also dismiss the cross appeal by the applicant. In Corbett, I would allow the appeal of the applicant and substitute for the order of the High Court an order granting the relief by way of prohibition sought in respect of the summons on foot of which the prosecution was brought.'

The Supreme Court dissented with the High Court decision that assault causing actual bodily harm is a statutory and not a common law offence and upheld Mr Grealis's appeal. Mr Grealis was unsuccessful in his appeal

For similar reasons, the court upheld the appeal by Mr Emmet Corbett against the High Court's refusal to restrain his prosecution on an assault charge. Mr Corbett was successful in his appeal.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.