ONE of the men convicted of the baseball bat murder of a Catholic schoolboy has won High Court permission to challenge a decision to deny him re-release from prison.
Mervyn Moon was jailed for his part in the fatal attack on 15-year-old Michael McIlveen in Ballymena, Co Antrim in May 2006.
Moon (32) had previously been freed on licence after serving the minimum 10-year tariff on his life sentence.
In 2017 those arrangements were revoked and he was recalled to prison for an alleged breach.
He is challenging a decision taken by Northern Ireland's Parole Commissioners in June 2020 to refuse his bid to be let out again.
Lawyers for the body argued that the case is now academic because Moon was subsequently released for a second time last month.
But a judge granted leave to seek a judicial review into allegations that the original refusal was unlawful.
The court also heard Moon is attempting to claim damages for false imprisonment.
Michael McIlveen, known to his friends and family as 'Micky Bo', died from brain injuries sustained in the sectarian attack.
He was kicked and beaten by a group of Protestant youths who pursued him into an alleyway in his hometown.
Moon, from Douglas Terrace in Ballymena, was said to have wielded the baseball bat handed to him by another gang member.
He pleaded guilty to murder and was ordered to spend at least 10 years behind bars.
Moon's barrister, Hugh Southey QC, told the court that he served the minimum term, was released on licence, but then recalled following a "relapse".
The subsequent decision by a panel of Parole Commissioners to deny his client's re-release, following a risk assessment, was based on flawed reasoning, according to counsel.
"It was a young person losing control in a one-off situation," he said.
"This is not the sort of case, it might be said, where the risk is particularly high as a result of a past conviction."
Mr Southey added: "Whether someone has posed a risk in the past is not the issue, the question is what is the current risk."
Donal Sayers QC, for the Parole Commissioners, countered that there is no longer need for judicial scrutiny.
"This case is academic because, as of last December, the applicant has been released," he said.
Disputing any claim for damages over false imprisonment, Mr Sayers submitted: "The applicant was not detained by the Parole Commissioners, he was detained by the Prison Service within the Department of Justice."
However, Mr Justice Colton ruled that the challenge should proceed to a full hearing later this year.
He said: "I take the view that the applicant has met the threshold for leave (to apply for judicial review), there's an arguable case here."
