Director of Public Prosecutions v Ratinskis (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, sentenced by the Circuit Criminal Court on 21 December 2016 to multiple terms including two 12-year terms arising from drug offences, sought temporary release under s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1960. The Applicant applied for temporary release in 2021 and again on or about 27 June 2024. Officials of the first-named Respondent (Company A) informed the Applicant that he was ineligible for temporary release because he was serving sentences attracting presumptive minimum terms under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1999 and 2007 ("the 1977 Act").

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted by the High Court (Judge Barr) on 5 September 2024, and the Respondents (Company A; Company B; Company C) filed a Statement of Opposition verified by an affidavit. The Applicant was subsequently released on 4 February 2025 by reason of enhanced remission under the Prison Rules 2007. The High Court (Judge Kennedy) in a prior decision [2025] IEHC 253 held the judicial review challenge was not moot and allowed it to proceed. This judgment was delivered by Judge Bradley on 12 June 2026 refusing the reliefs sought.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sub-provisions of s.27(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (in particular s.27(3C), s.27(3G), s.27(3H) and s.27(3I)) operate so that a sentencing court must be taken to have "specified a minimum term" only when the sentencing judge expressly so states, such that the Applicant remained eligible for consideration for temporary release.
2. If the statutory provisions are interpreted to preclude temporary release for those serving sentences of ten years or more for s.15A offences, whether s.27(3I) (and related provisions) are contrary to the Constitution and/or incompatible with the State's obligations under the ECHR Act 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that s.27(3I) precludes temporary-release consideration only where the sentencing court has expressly specified a minimum term under s.27(3C); he argued no such minimum term was specified in his case and he therefore remained eligible for temporary release.
• Alternatively, if the Applicant's interpretation was incorrect and s.27(3I) operated to preclude temporary release because a sentence of over ten years was imposed for a 1977 Act offence, he contended that s.27(3I) was unconstitutional and incompatible with the ECHR Act 2003 (arguments relied on equality and personal liberty grounds).

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents asserted that by imposing determinate sentences of 12 years the sentencing court, in effect and under the statutory scheme, specified the minimum term required by s.27(3C); accordingly s.27(3I) applied and temporary-release powers were to be withheld during the relevant minimum term except for grave humanitarian reasons.
• The Respondents urged that the statutory regime is presumptively minimum, affords judicial flexibility, pursues legitimate objectives (harm caused by drug trafficking) and is consistent with constitutional and ECHR requirements; therefore the Applicant's constitutional and Convention challenges fail.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court adopted a contextual, purposive approach to statutory interpretation, following recent Supreme Court authorities emphasizing language, place, function and context. It examined the interrelated sub-provisions of s.27(3) and its subsections (3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J etc.).

Key analytical steps:

• The court analysed the statutory sentencing sequence: (a) the sentencing court determines an appropriate headline or determinate sentence; (b) in s.15A/s.15B cases the statute requires specification of a minimum term "of not less than 10 years" under s.27(3C) unless exceptional and specific circumstances justify departure under s.27(3D); (c) remission rules (s.27(3H)) reduce the specified minimum by earned remission; (d) s.27(3G) and s.27(3I) then govern when commutation/remission and temporary-release powers may be exercised.
• The court rejected the Applicant's submission that a sentencing court must use a particular form of words to "specify" a minimum term; instead, by imposing determinate sentences of 12 years in respect of the relevant offences, the sentencing judge had specified the relevant minimum term within the statutory scheme.
• The court explained that the statutory regime operates as presumptive minimum sentencing provisions that allow judicial flexibility (via s.27(3D)) and that the existence of a specified minimum informs both sentencing and post-sentence management (including remission and temporary-release eligibility).
• On constitutional and ECHR challenges, the court applied the presumption of constitutionality and the Heaney proportionality framework. It held the scheme pursues legitimate aims (harm caused by drug trafficking), is rationally connected to those aims, impairs rights as little as is reasonably possible, and is proportionate. The court distinguished the present presumptive regime from provisions previously struck down (e.g., mandatory repeat-offender minimums in Ellis and McManus) and found s.27(3I) (and related provisions) does not impermissibly remove judicial sentencing function or create an irrational classification.
• Regarding Convention claims, the court observed the ECHR Act 2003 gives the Convention indirect effect domestically; ECtHR decisions are to be taken into account but do not have binding domestic effect. The court considered Gerger v Turkey as persuasive on the point that statutory differentiation by offence gravity does not necessarily amount to unlawful discrimination.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court REFUSED the Applicant's interpretation of the statutory provisions and dismissed the Applicant's constitutional and ECHR Act 2003 challenges. The proposed order was to refuse the reliefs sought by way of judicial review.

Implications:

• Direct effect on parties: the Applicant's challenge was dismissed; the Respondents' determination that the Applicant was ineligible for ordinary temporary-release consideration under the statutory scheme was upheld (subject to the statutory exception for grave humanitarian reasons).
• Broader precedent: the judgment affirms the court's interpretive approach to s.27(3) as a presumptive-minimum regime with judicial flexibility and distinguishes it from the mandatory repeat-offender provisions previously invalidated. The court recorded no declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR Act 2003 and found no constitutional invalidity in the provisions as applied in this case.