Allister questions legality of Kelly release
02 August 2005
DUP MEP and QC, JIM ALLISTER, has questioned the legality of the Secretary of State’s decision to release Sean Kelly. Having in his legal career been involved in cases before the Review Commissioners, Mr Allister is far from convinced that the Secretary of State acted within the statutory framework governing the licensing of prisoners and the revocation of such licences. Commenting, Mr Allister said, “The statutory framework bestows primacy for the review of decisions to revoke licences on the Commissioners. The Secretary of State appears to have utterly pre-empted that process and taken upon himself the creation of a novel concept of “temporary release”. Shameless political expediency, not law, has governed the process, which in consequence has been hopelessly corrupted.”
In pursuit of pressing the Secreatary of State the DUP MEP has written to him in the following terms:-
Dear Secretary of State,
Re: Release of Shankill Bomber, Kelly
Following your decision of 27th July 2005 to release the Shankill Bomber, I write to seek clarification of the legal basis upon which you purported to act.
I’d be obliged if, with reference to the relevant statutory provisions, you would set out for me the precise basis of the power exercised by you on this occasion, given the statutory architecture governing the issue of the licensing of prisoners and the revocation thereof.
I’d also like to understand the legal status which the NIO perceives Kelly enjoys pending any decision to set aside your earlier revocation of his licence. Where is the statutory authority for this concept of “temporary release” and upon such a release is such a person still on licence, and, if so, on what statutory basis?
Isn’t the effect of “temporary release” to render it impracticable for the NIO to argue for revocation of his licence at any subsequent hearing by the Commissioners and in consequence, what will be the NIO stance at such a hearing? What then of the Chief Constable's advice giving rise to the re-arrest of Kelly? He is on record as saying he was not consulted about the release decision. Why was this? Without the Chief Constable advising Kelly was no longer a threat, despite prtevious advices, how could your decision be justified?
Can you advise me if the device of temporary release has ever before been exercised and whether you anticipate deploying it in other cases.
Finally, I would request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, sight of all papers giving rise to the decision to grant “temporary licence” to Kelly.
I look forward to hearing from you at an early date on this matter of acute public importance.
Yours sincerely,
