Alan Bradley (42) of Churchfields, Kentstown, Co Meath, with his sibling Wayne, pleaded guilty before the Circuit Criminal Court in 2012 to conspiring to snitch cash from Chubb Ireland in November 2007 at Tesco, Celbridge, Co Kildare.
Bradley was sentenced to nine years incarceration with the final two years suspended. This was reduced on appeal to eight years with 18 months put.
He has since been given bail pending the outcome of his High Court ultimatum over his remission claim.
In that action, he claims that after sustaining a number of courses and improving his behaviour while serving the sentence in Portlaoise Choky, this entitled him to enhanced or one-third remission, rather than the routine one-quarter off his sentence.
Two applications he made to the Minister for additional time off his decision were refused on the basis that he represented a risk to public cover.
Arising out of the refusals, he launched proceedings aimed at quashing the refusals. He also seeks a pronouncement he is entitled to enhanced remission.
The action, which is opposed by the Minister, unblocked before Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh on Tuesday.
Michael O Higgins SC, for Bradley, remarked his client had undergone a number of educational and training courses, including one in senior aid.
Counsel said the Minister says she took a number of criteria into thoughtfulness before assessing any application for enhanced remission.
Counsel said that function of the material submitted to the Minister when the application was being assessed was a four-year-old news per article relating to Bradley.
The article quoted an anonymous garda source, was out of date and should not induce formed the basis of any decision made in respect of Bradley’s applications in 2016 for reinforced remission, he said.
Counsel said Bradley would have been labeled to release last June had he got one-third remission, rather than the ordinary one-quarter. The refusal meant he had to spend approximately five more months in penal institution.
Bradley, who is on bail pending the outcome of the action, was present in court for the approve of.
The Minister has opposed the action and argues the Minister was entitled on the basis of the corporeal before her to refuse the application for enhanced remission.
The case continues.