Anderson release: Long orders investigation as court findings prompt Burrows demand for answers

On the run, convicted murderer Gary Anderson

Saturday 19 September 2026

Justice Minister Naomi Long has ordered an urgent investigation into the handling of convicted murderer Gary Anderson’s temporary release, after a High Court judgment exposed incorrect risk information and recorded that an opportunity to reconsider the refusal of release had been declined.

Anderson, who was convicted of murdering Karol Kelly, subsequently absconded. The case has prompted Ulster Unionist Party leader Jon Burrows to demand independent scrutiny and challenge assurances the Minister gave the Assembly.

In a statement issued on Saturday evening, the Department of Justice said it now appeared that the court’s invitation to reconsider had not been communicated by legal representatives to the prison officials responsible for the decision.

Ms Long intends to address the Assembly on Monday and meet Mr Kelly’s family at the earliest opportunity.

Incorrect information influenced prison decision

The court proceedings concerned applications by Gary Anderson, held at Maghaberry, and his brother Sean, held at Magilligan, to attend their father Cathal’s funeral Mass at St Mary’s Church in Creggan on Monday 14 September.

Both applications for compassionate temporary release were refused. Mr Justice Rooney heard their challenges during an urgent High Court hearing on Sunday 13 September.

The refusal in Gary Anderson’s case stated that a February review had increased his assessed likelihood of general reoffending from medium to high, with his score rising from 26 to 32.

During the hearing, however, the Prison Service’s barrister told the court that its system showed a score of 27, not 32. The same score had been recorded in July 2022.

Claimed review could not be substantiated

The judgment records that the colleague who supplied the information about the alleged increase could not recall its source. Further checks found no reference to the increase, and no supporting review document was produced.

Mr Justice Rooney found there was no evidence that the claimed updated review had taken place. He concluded that the incorrect information had materially influenced the assessment of risk and the balancing of the reasons for and against release.

The original refusal also cited Anderson’s prison disciplinary record, including damage to prison property and disruptive behaviour. It raised concerns about the safety of staff escorting him to the funeral, referring to police advice that the threat level in the area was substantial.

Those concerns did not alter the court’s finding that the decision relied on materially inaccurate information.

Court offered an opportunity to reconsider

Mr Justice Rooney invited the Duty Governor to reconsider the refusal. The judgment records that the invitation was not accepted: the Prison Service’s barrister said she had no instruction to concede the application and that the matter should be left in the court’s hands.

The judge expressly accepted that the Duty Governor and the barrister were “candid and open with the court”. He nevertheless concluded that the opportunity to review the decision using correct risk information had not been taken.

He ruled that the refusal was unlawful and disproportionately interfered with Anderson’s right to respect for family life. The failure to reconsider also created a further procedural disadvantage.

Release ordered under conditions

The court quashed the refusal and took what the judge described as an exceptional course, ordering the Prison Service to allow Gary Anderson to attend his father’s funeral Mass under specified conditions.

Mr Justice Rooney acknowledged the limitations of the court’s role in specialist risk assessments, but explained that the Prison Service had declined to provide updated, reliable and accurate evidence and had expressly invited the court to decide.

The conditions required prison staff to bring Anderson to Londonderry Courthouse, where his uncle would collect him and remain with him throughout. He was to attend the church service and return via the courthouse to Maghaberry, without visiting other locations.

The order also prohibited alcohol, non-prescribed medication and electronic communication devices. Anderson subsequently absconded following his temporary release.

Brother’s refusal was upheld

The same judgment upheld Magilligan’s refusal to release Sean Anderson.

Mr Justice Rooney found that the relevant factors had been identified, considered and balanced proportionately. These included his assessed high likelihood of reoffending, risk of serious harm to the public and conduct in prison.

The court therefore accepted that refusing compassionate release was justified in Sean Anderson’s case, while finding the decision concerning Gary Anderson unlawful.

Burrows demands accountability

Responding to the judgment, Mr Burrows said his first thoughts were with Karol Kelly’s family.

“They have already endured the most appalling loss and have now been retraumatised by the release and subsequent absconding of the man convicted of his murder,” he said.

“This judgment is damning. It exposes catastrophic and inexplicable failures in senior decision-making, procedure and record-keeping at Maghaberry Prison.”

The UUP leader said he believed the substantive decision to refuse release had been correct, but argued that its handling had undermined the Prison Service’s ability to defend it.

Questions over Assembly assurances

Mr Burrows said he had asked Ms Long whether lessons could be learned about how the decision had been “formulated, recorded or written down” to make it more resilient to legal challenge.

According to his statement, the Minister told the Assembly there was “no suggestion that the Prison Service misjudged the case”, that its decision was “correctly taken and was right”, and that the service had “strongly resisted the release, even at the judicial review”.

He argued that maintaining formal opposition to release did not answer why the opportunity to reconsider the flawed decision had been declined. The judgment itself makes no finding about the Minister’s Assembly statements.

“The Minister must now explain what she knew when she answered the Assembly, who briefed her and why she offered such an unequivocal defence of the handling that the court found to be fundamentally flawed. She should return to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity to clarify and, where necessary, correct the record.”

Call for independent examination

Mr Burrows called for an urgent independent examination of decision-making, record-keeping, senior oversight and the handling of the legal challenge. He also asked who the Duty Governor had consulted and who authorised leaving the matter for the court to decide.

“This is not criticism of front-line prison officers. It is about accountability for senior-level failures that created the circumstances in which the court said it had no alternative but to order the release of a dangerous murderer who subsequently absconded.”

He said he had submitted an urgent oral question seeking answers from the Justice Minister at the Assembly on Monday 21 September.

Department says court offer was not passed on

In its Saturday evening statement, the Department of Justice said further information had emerged following the Minister’s report to the Assembly earlier in the week and the review she had committed to undertake.

It said Ms Long instructed the Director General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service to undertake an urgent investigation as soon as she became aware of the issues.

“As a result, it now appears that, while the Court’s judgment records that the possibility of a reconsideration of the original decision was discussed during proceedings, this opportunity was not communicated by legal representatives to those within NIPS who held responsibility for the decision.”

“Updates provided to NIPS following the hearing, including legal readouts, did not indicate such an opportunity had been offered.”

Communication issue remains under investigation

The Department’s statement presents a provisional account of why the invitation was not acted upon. It does not dispute that the court offered an opportunity to reconsider, but says it now appears that the offer did not reach the responsible prison officials.

The court’s recorded finding and the Department’s account therefore raise a further question about communication during and after the hearing. That issue is now subject to investigation.

The statement does not announce the independent examination sought by Mr Burrows. It identifies an investigation led by the Prison Service Director General and says the Minister will update the Assembly on the actions she intends to take to establish the relevant facts.

Minister plans Assembly statement and family meeting

The Department said Ms Long remained deeply concerned about Anderson’s release and absconding, and was acutely conscious of the distress caused to Karol Kelly’s family and wider public concern. She intends to meet the family at the earliest opportunity.

It said she notified the Speaker’s Office of her intention to make an oral statement on Monday immediately after becoming aware of the new information.

As of Saturday evening, the Department said Anderson remained unlawfully at large. The Minister urged him to surrender immediately and asked anyone with information about his whereabouts to contact the PSNI without delay.