PHILIPSBURG:--- The Joint Court of Justice has upheld the careful and consistent approach taken by Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling in handling requests for early conditional release (VI). In its ruling of September 25, 2025 (HAR-85/2025), delivered by a three-judge panel, the Court dismissed an inmate’s appeal, making clear that early release is not an individual right but an exceptional measure applied only under specific circumstances.
The Court recognized that the Minister exercises this authority responsibly and without arbitrariness, guided by objective criteria. Priority is given to inmates proportionally closest to their regular VI date, ensuring a fair and transparent process. The Court made clear that early release cannot be claimed at fixed percentages of a sentence, such as 44% or 60%, as was argued in the appeal.
Minister Tackling welcomed the ruling as a strong endorsement of her clear and principled approach:
“It is reassuring to see that the judiciary, as an independent third party, validates that the policy on early conditional release is applied carefully and equally to all inmates. The ruling underscores that the decisions we take are in line with the law, the intent of the legislature, and without regard to personal status.”
Under Article 1:31 of the Criminal Code, inmates may be considered for conditional release after serving two-thirds of their sentence. In exceptional circumstances, such as acute prison overcrowding, this threshold may be adjusted, but only within lawful and carefully defined limits. Article 1:37 gives the Minister the authority to consider earlier release in such cases. Each request is carefully vetted, requiring written advice from the Central Probation Board (CCR) and input from both the Prison Director and the Probation Office (J&IS). The Minister cannot grant early release randomly, ensuring that all decisions remain impartial, regulated, and lawful.
The ruling also echoes the Minister’s stance on electronic monitoring (EM). While EM may be used as a special condition under Article 1:32 of the Penal Code, it is not a substitute for prison time. Its use requires proper risk assessments, comes with significant costs, and is reserved only for specific circumstances.
With the decision of the three judges, the Court of Appeal has once again confirmed that early conditional release is not an entitlement but a carefully managed instrument applied only when necessary. Minister Tackling emphasized that this ensures fairness, equal treatment, and legal certainty for all inmates, while safeguarding the integrity of the justice system.