Reasons for refusal of temporary release to long-serving prisoner were sufficiently clear

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – telescoped hearing – challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing him temporary release – longest serving prisoner in the State – convicted of murder – sentenced to life – Parole Board reviews - recommended that he receive an escorted day out and occasional outings - repatriation application refused - failure to provide detailed reasons – proceedings issued – adjourned to allow a fifth review - no reason was given by the Parole Board for their reversal of their 2008 recommendation that the applicant be given escorted days out - dynamic risk assessment - accepts that he has no right to temporary release – executive function - a life sentence does not incorporate any element of preventative detention - narrow confines of a judicial review where executive privilege is involved – arbitrary, capricious or unjust - duty to give reasons - obliged to set out the basis of the refusal to accept the recommendation of the Parole Board that the applicant be afforded two escorted outings per annum - sufficiently patent from the decision letter that the applicant’s present factual circumstances, and the circumstances surrounding his offences, were to the forefront in the consideration afforded to the temporary release recommendation – Minister provided a suitably rationalised response to the Parole Board’s recommendation that the applicant be granted two days escorted outings per year – argued that the failure to provide him with an opportunity to make oral representations was unfair - clearly exists what is in effect a dedicated mechanism for the review of sentences - function of the Parole Board is to provide an advisory role to the Minister - had the benefit of legal assistance - provision for a further review - stamp duty challenge - does not qualify for an exemption from stamp duty - whether the absence of an exemption from stamp duty for someone in the prisoner’s circumstances renders the 2014 Order unconstitutional - not unconstitutional for the State to impose a stamping fee for the processing of documents.