Last Friday the Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the Ministry of Justice, affirming lawful and proper application of an early conditional release framework under the Criminal Code. This is important, because there have been allegations of arbitrariness and favouritism.
A prisoner objected to the refusal of early release despite being included in an internal assessment related to the management of limited detention capacity. The judge confirmed that inmates do not have an individual or enforceable right to such.
As a general rule, convicted persons are required to serve their sentence until the normal moment of conditional release, unless the minister determines that proven and exceptional pressure on cell space justifies the application of Article 1:37 of the Criminal Code.
The court held that Minister Natalee Tackling reasonably arrived at her decision and that the refusal had been carefully, transparently and adequately motivated. It was based, among other considerations, on advice from the Central Probation Board CCR and an assessment of the inmate’s conduct during detention.
Furthermore, the court determined that the minister did not act in violation of the principle of equality, meaning that all prisoners are assessed using the same standards and that no element of arbitrariness was present. The judge made clear that comparisons with individual cases do not create a legal right to early conditional release.
The verdict removes possible doubts about the process at least in this example. It is also consistent with an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeals, which confirmed that early release is not a right but an exceptional measure. It reinforces that these decisions are taken carefully, equally and strictly within applicable legislation.
The bottom line remains that early release is not really a policy choice, but rather a necessary evil due to an acute shortage of cell space.
