A convicted murderer who has spent twenty years behind bars brought a High Court challenge over what he claims is a refusal by the Minister for Justice to consider his entitlement to parole.
The action has been brought by 46-year-old Paulo Nascimento who was jailed after he admitted shooting dead a young woman after he robbed the hotel they both worked at.
He claims he applied for parole on several occasions under the non-statutory Parole Board system, which had been in operation between 2001 and last year.
Under that regime, the board reviewed applications from prisoners serving lengthy sentences after being advised by the Minister for Justice who should be considered for temporary release.
He claims that in early 2021 a parole board recommended that he be granted temporary release, some time at the start of this year.
The board that reviewed his case stated that the risk the applicant would reoffend was “as low as it can get”, that keeping him in custody was “no longer productive” and that his case did not need any further review.
However, Nascimento’s lawyers told the High Court that he remains in custody because, since the new Parole Board has been established, the Minister has refused to decide on his entitlement to temporary release.
Represented by Michael Lynn SC, instructed by solicitor James MacGuill, Nascimento says a new parole system came into place.
The State established a statutory Parole Board, which makes its decisions on the release of prisoners independently from the Minister.
It is claimed that, as a consequence, the Minister has abandoned the administrative processes undertaken by the boards that had operated under the former parole system.
Nascimento contacted the new Parole Board to ensure the regime change would not affect his proposed temporary release.
However, the new board said it is entirely separate from the previous board and is a stranger to the previous decision granting him parole.
The new board said that it would review his case.
Given the purported decisions that were made under the previous parole regime, Nascimento’s lawyers wrote to the Minister seeking a response.
It is claimed that no substantive reply has been given by the Minister and that the Minister has adopted a position that Nascimento’s entitlement to temporary release is now a matter for the new Parole Board.
It is claimed that the extension of his incarcerations, without any rehabilitation plan to prepare him for release, is a breach of his rights and amounts to failure by the Minister to fulfil her duties.
The Portuguese native was given a life sentence at the Central Criminal Court in 2003 after he pleaded guilty to the murder of Grainne Dillon at the Jury’s Inn Hotel, Steamboat Quay, Limerick, in January 2002.
Nascimento had been working as a night porter at the hotel.
The two had been working a night shift together when Nascimento blasted the 24-year-old victim three times at point range with a shotgun after he robbed €3,000 from the hotel.
He is currently serving his sentence at Shelton Abbey Prison, Co Wicklow.
In his judicial review action against the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, the applicant seeks various orders and declarations from the court.
These include an order that the Minister provide the applicant with a decision on his entitlement to reviewable temporary release or alternatively that the Minister’s refusal to consider his entitlement to temporary release be quashed.
He also seeks various declarations including that the Minister is acting unlawfully and fettering her discretion by operating a blanket policy of refusing to consider the applicant’s individual circumstances because a new statutory Parole Board has been established.
It is claimed this has resulted in the Minister refusing to decide on Nascimento’s entitlement to parole. Counsel said that, at this stage, the new board has been asked to consider his client’s application.
However, the board may not be able to deal with it until March or April of next year.
He also seeks declarations that the continuing refusal to decide on his entitlement to parole is unlawful and that the refusal amounts to a breach of the Minister’s duty.
He further seeks a declaration that the refusal amounts to a breach of his constitutional rights and a breach of the Minister’s duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The matter came before Mr Justice Charles Meenan on Monday.
The Judge on an ex parte basis (only one side was represented in court) granted the applicant permission to bring his challenge.
The matter will return before the court in October.