No injustice in Minister’s decision to refuse sex offender enhanced remission

Judicial review – sentencing – criminal law - challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision to refuse enhanced remission - convicted of a series of sexual assaults on a child -  five-year sentence of imprisonment – typically prisoner receive one quarter remission - applied for enhanced remission – one third of sentence off is successful - took various steps to reduce his prospects of re-offending - application for remission was rejected - nature and gravity of offence – issued judicial review proceedings -  maintains that the Minister fettered her discretion by applying an unduly restrictive policy, or a blanket-refusal policy - no sex offenders have thus far been successful in obtaining a one-third remission – independent and consistent decisions – no capriciousness, arbitrariness or unjustness presenting in the Minister’s decision - proper and good reasons offered for refusal – suggestion that decision-maker indicated before the application was considered, that it was unlikely to be successful – Court determined that this was an entirely unobjectionable conversation - claimed that the Minister failed to give proper justification for her refusal - letter refusing the one-third remission was too terse and that the Minister ought to have expanded more fully on the application and the weighting accorded by her to the various aspects of the application - Minister is required to provide a suitably rationalised response by reference to the facts of the application before her.