The High Court has refused Jimmy Cash’s application for judicial review over the handling of information about his medical needs while he was in Wheatfield Prison. Ms Justice Murphy ruled that the Governor complied with Rule 102 of the Prison Rules 2007 by referring concerns from Mr Cash’s solicitor to the prison medical team, which reviewed his file and arranged a radiological examination.
The case concerned Mr Cash’s injuries after a February 2013 road collision. He had been treated at St Vincent’s Hospital but left without completing his care. After later periods in Cloverhill and Wheatfield prisons, prison medical staff recorded complaints including back pain and headaches, provided medication and tried to obtain his hospital records.
In August 2013, Mr Cash’s solicitor wrote to the prison alleging severe back pain and missed hospital appointments, including eye and ear appointments. The letters asked for medical attention and a hospital appointment. The prison doctor reviewed Mr Cash’s medical file on 26 August and referred him for radiological examination; an appointment was later confirmed for 21 October. The doctor did not personally examine Mr Cash on 26 August, correcting an earlier affidavit that had said he had.
Mr Cash initially sought judicial review relief concerning Rule 33, which sets out prisoners’ entitlement to healthcare. Leave to proceed was not granted on that issue. On 25 September 2013, the court granted leave on the narrower question of whether the prison had failed to provide appropriate medical treatment contrary to Rule 102. The High Court later rejected the Governor’s argument that the case had become moot, because Mr Cash remained in custody at the time of the hearing and the issue could still affect his rights.
Justice Murphy found that the solicitor’s letters amounted to information under Rule 102. The Governor passed the information to the prison doctor, and the medical file recorded the complaint, who was informed and when. The court held that the rule did not require a personal log by the Governor. It also ruled that the assessment required under Rule 102 depended on the information received and did not always require a physical examination. In this case, a file review was appropriate.
The court noted that the prison team had been unable to obtain Mr Cash’s St Vincent’s records, but said differing dates and addresses given by him may have made them harder to locate. It also found no evidence establishing that hospital appointments had been arranged or missed, and noted that Mr Cash had made no request for prison medical assistance between 26 June and his solicitor’s first letter in August. The court concluded that the prison had complied with Rule 102 and refused the application.