The High Court declared that prison authorities had breached Rule 62 of the Prison Rules 2007 “on occasion” in managing Warren Dumbrell, who had been held in substantial isolation for periods during his imprisonment. Ms Justice O’Regan said the governor could not avoid applying Rule 62 simply because the prisoner’s challenging behaviour was a long-term issue.
Dumbrell brought judicial review proceedings concerning his detention at the Midlands Prison. He was moved to Portlaoise Prison on 14 March 2018. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the effective relief he sought was a declaration that the respondents had breached Rule 62 by removing him from structured activity or association on grounds of order without following the rule.
The respondents had argued in written submissions that the move made the case moot, but did not rely on that as a sufficient reason to resist the claim at the hearing. The judge held that the issue was not moot.
Rule 62 allows a governor to restrict a prisoner’s structured activities, communal recreation or association where there are reasonable grounds to believe those activities would pose a significant threat to good order or safe or secure custody. It also provides for safeguards, including review and records. The rule says restrictions must not last longer than necessary to maintain order or safety.
The respondents described the prisoner as challenging and said his behaviour and threats required a tailored sentence-management regime. They argued that Rule 62 was a temporary measure unsuitable for longer-term behaviour issues, and that prison authorities had discretion over the regime. The applicant’s case was that he had effectively been removed from structured activities without the protections that follow when Rule 62 is invoked.
The judge accepted that prison authorities had discretion to choose suitable conditions and management measures. But once a regime met the criteria in Rule 62, the rule had to be applied. She found no basis in the rule for limiting it to short-term situations: its duration was limited by how long it remained necessary for order or safety.
The judgment said the prisoner had experienced substantial isolation during periods of his incarceration, including at times since August 2015. The respondents did not appear to dispute that account. The court did not specify the dates or number of occasions when Rule 62 should have been applied. It made a declaration that the respondents had breached the rule on occasion; the judgment did not set out any further order.