The High Court has refused an application by Frank Ward for an order requiring prison authorities to provide him with private consultations with his legal advisers in the environs of Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
Ward, who was facing trial over an alleged armed robbery at the Goat Grill public house and car park in Goatstown on 6 October 2003, sought judicial review after an incident during an interim hearing. His legal team asked to speak with him without a prison officer present. The officer said permission from an Assistant Chief Officer was required; that officer was unavailable, and Ward was told he could consult only while handcuffed to a prison officer.
The respondents said Ward could meet his legal advisers privately at Portlaoise Prison at reasonable times, in sight but out of hearing of prison officers, and had done so on several occasions. They argued that keeping him handcuffed in the court building was justified by escape and public safety risks. They said private consultation in a courtroom could be arranged if security conditions allowed, with officers guarding exits; otherwise officers would remain nearby. Ward had not sought consultation inside a courtroom during the incident.
Justice McGovern said a person in custody has a constitutional right to reasonable access to legal advisers in private, but the arrangements must be considered in their setting. The court had not previously considered the extent of that right in a court building outside a courtroom during an interim hearing.
The judge found that Ward had been afforded reasonable access to private legal consultations at the prison. He also found a reasonable basis for requiring Ward to remain handcuffed during the court building consultation, and said Ward had not explained how the incident compromised his defence or the fairness of his trial.
The court was satisfied that reasonable private consultation facilities would be available at the prison and for Ward’s trial in court. Any dispute about the adequacy of facilities at trial, the judge said, would be for the trial judge to address. He rejected Ward’s claims that the incident was unfair, prejudiced his defence or violated his rights under the Constitution or Article 6(3)(b) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The request for damages therefore did not arise.
The High Court refused the order of mandamus and all relief sought. The judgment was delivered on 25 January 2007.