Convicted Real IRA member Michael McKevitt will seek a judicial review next week of his application for early release, the High Court heard this morning.
His bid for early release from prison based on good behaviour stalled following a Supreme Court decision in a similar case last week.
The Supreme Court decision meant applications related to remission of sentence should be heard through the judicial review procedure and not under Article 40 of the Constitution.
McKevitt, who is serving a 20-year sentence for membership of the Real IRA, had taken an Article 40 application after former minister for justice Alan Shatter decided he should have 25 per cent remission, with a release date of March 2016.
The 59-year-old had sought a third off his sentence with a release date of July 26th last.
Remy Farrell, for McKevitt, told Mr Justice Michael Moriarty this morning his client's Article 40 application had been overtaken by events at the Supreme Court.
Mr Farrell said he would be making an application for leave to apply for judicial review.
Mr Justice Moriarty said the matter would be better dealt with by Mr Justice Bernard Barton who was familiar with the case.
He adjourned the matter to next Monday.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving Limerick man Eddie Ryan jnr, who was imprisoned for six years for possession of a high-powered firearm and ammunition in the city
The 31-year-old had sought one third remission at the High Court and was released last month on the basis that he should have been entitled to full remission.
However, a warrant was issued for his arrest and return to prison last Friday, after the Supreme Court appeal was successful.
The Supreme Court found habeas corpus (an order requiring a detained person to be brought before a court) and now subsumed in Article 40 of the Constitution, was not the appropriate remedy for the issue of remission.
Reading the judgment, Chief Justice Susan Denham said habeas corpus was the “great protection of the citizen’s liberty”.
“It protects our citizens from arbitrary detention and imprisonment without legal warrant, not to mention disappearances which, historically and now are all too common in dictatorial regimes,” she said.
She said the court must always enquire immediately into the grounds of any person’s detention when called upon to do so.
“But the fact that every person detained has a right to have the legality of his detention examined by the superior courts does not mean that such a person has a right to have every complaint he may have examined under the same extraordinary procedure,” she said.
The “special and extraordinary features” of the Article 40 procedure were not required for the examination of Ryan’s complaint, Mrs Justice Denham said.
