- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rodger, Re Judicial Review
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was convicted of two separate murders committed in the 1970s, both sectarian in nature and connected to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland. The first murder conviction occurred in 1975, resulting in a life sentence, with release on licence after approximately 16 years. The second murder conviction arose decades later, following advances in forensic technology, with a conviction in 2013 and a life sentence imposed.
The Applicant contends that had both offences been sentenced prior to 28 July 1998, he would have been eligible for release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act"), which provides for accelerated release of qualifying prisoners. He argues that having served more than two years for a terrorism-related offence should entitle him to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy ("the RPM") to secure release on licence without serving the full two years for the subsequent offence.
Leave to apply for judicial review was initially refused but was granted on appeal. The judicial review challenges the Secretary of State's refusal to recommend the exercise of the RPM in the Applicant's case.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in the Applicant's case was unlawful due to unfair or unequal treatment compared to other cases where the RPM was exercised.
- Whether the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that the RPM would be exercised based on an alleged existing policy or practice.
- Whether the absence of a formal policy governing the exercise of the RPM in the context of the 1998 Act was procedurally unfair or unlawful under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Whether the Secretary of State provided adequate reasons for the refusal to recommend the RPM.
- Whether there was any discrimination in the exercise of the RPM based on political or sectarian grounds.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Applicant argued that his case was analogous to others where the RPM had been exercised to allow release after serving two years for one offence, thus he should not be required to serve a further two years for a separate offence.
- He contended there was an unfair or unequal approach to the exercise of the RPM, amounting to illegality.
- The Applicant asserted a legitimate expectation of the exercise of the RPM based on prior cases and alleged policy.
- He argued that the absence of a formal policy was unlawful and procedurally unfair, hindering meaningful representations.
- The Applicant claimed the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for refusing the RPM.
- He further alleged discrimination in the application of the RPM based on nationalist or loyalist status.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Secretary of State contended that the Applicant’s case did not fall within any of the established categories where the RPM had been exercised.
- It was maintained that the RPM had never been used to relieve an offender from serving two years for a subsequent qualifying offence following a prior two-year served sentence.
- The Secretary of State argued no policy existed regarding the exercise of the RPM in relation to the 1998 Act, and that the absence of such a policy was lawful.
- The reasons for refusal were explained as the offences being separate and distinct, with no anomaly warranting the RPM.
- It was denied that any discrimination occurred, noting comparable treatment of offenders from different political backgrounds.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Terence McGeough's Application for Judicial Review [2012] NICA 28 | Justiciability and intensity of review of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy; wide discretion afforded to decision-maker; high factual threshold for unfairness or inequality. | The Court applied McGeough to confirm that the Applicant must surmount a high factual threshold to prove unfair or unequal treatment in the exercise of the RPM. |
| R (on the application of Kennedy) v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 | Intensity of judicial review depends on context, with fundamental rights requiring more intense scrutiny. | The Applicant argued for heightened scrutiny based on deprivation of liberty; the Court acknowledged but applied McGeough as binding precedent. |
| B v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] EWCA Civ 929 | Requirement for lawful, published policy to ensure consistency and fairness in executive discretion. | The Court considered the Applicant's claim that a policy was necessary for the exercise of the RPM, referencing this precedent on policy transparency. |
| R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 | Necessity of transparent, published policies governing executive detention powers to prevent arbitrariness. | Used to support argument that absence of RPM policy could breach Article 5 ECHR; Court ultimately found no unlawful absence of policy in this context. |
| Desmond O'Hare v The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2001] IEHC 121 | Interpretation of Belfast Agreement's prisoner release provisions as political rather than legal rights; no automatic entitlement to release after two years. | Referenced to demonstrate the political nature of the Belfast Agreement and absence of enforceable rights to release, informing the Court’s understanding. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined the statutory framework established by the 1998 Act and the Belfast Agreement, noting the distinctions between early release, accelerated release, and the operation of the RPM. It highlighted that the 1998 Act requires serving two years for a subsequent qualifying offence before accelerated release applies, with no statutory provision for waiving this requirement based on time served for earlier offences.
The Court analyzed the Applicant’s reliance on the case of James McArdle, where the RPM was used to allow release after serving two years for offences in England, to avoid serving two years for subsequent offences in Northern Ireland. The Court found McArdle’s case factually distinct and not establishing a precedent for the Applicant’s situation.
The Court reviewed the fourfold categorization of cases where the RPM was exercised between 2000 and 2002, concluding that none were analogous to the Applicant’s case, particularly those involving subsequent convictions under Section 10(6) of the 1998 Act.
Addressing the intensity of judicial review, the Court applied the principles from McGeough, requiring a high factual threshold for finding unfair or unequal treatment. The Applicant failed to meet this threshold.
Regarding the existence of a policy, the Court found no formal policy on the exercise of the RPM in this context. It reasoned that the RPM’s exercise depends heavily on case-specific facts, making a rigid policy impractical and unnecessary. The absence of a policy did not amount to procedural unfairness or breach of Article 5 ECHR.
The Court found the Secretary of State’s reasons for refusal clear, adequate, and correct, specifically that the offences were separate and no anomaly existed warranting the RPM. The fourfold categorization, while simplistic, did not obscure consideration of analogous cases.
Finally, the Court rejected the discrimination claim, noting that offenders from different political backgrounds, including nationalist and loyalist, had been treated equally under the RPM and 1998 Act.
Holding and Implications
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
The Court upheld the Secretary of State’s decision not to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in the Applicant's case. The decision confirms the strict application of the 1998 Act’s provisions requiring serving two years for each qualifying offence before eligibility for accelerated release. No precedent was set to relax this requirement or to treat time served for one offence as reducing the period to be served for a subsequent offence.
The ruling clarifies that the RPM remains a discretionary power exercised sparingly and factually dependent, without a formal policy governing its use in the context of the 1998 Act. The absence of such a policy does not constitute unlawfulness or procedural unfairness. The decision reinforces the wide discretion afforded to the Secretary of State and the high threshold for judicial interference in RPM decisions.
Alert