The High Court has allowed Eddie Kershaw to add several grounds to his judicial review concerning conditions at Mountjoy Prison, including allegations about his access to the court and freedom of expression. The ruling does not decide whether those allegations are true or whether he is entitled to substantive relief.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered the ruling on 27 February 2007. Mr Kershaw had originally applied in person from Mountjoy for habeas corpus, complaining about his conditions of detention. In a ruling on 16 November 2006, the judge had found that the conditions issues did not provide an arguable basis for release, but that Mr Kershaw had an arguable case for mandamus and damages.
After Mr Kershaw was released, he asked the court on 12 December 2006 to correct the formal order, which had omitted permission to pursue damages. The judge amended it. Time was also extended on several occasions. Mr Kershaw later sought further leave to include matters beyond those covered by the existing order.
The judge refused to add a request to have the prison governor declared in contempt for allegedly failing to meet an undertaking given in separate proceedings, State (Richardson) v Governor of Mountjoy Prison. Mr Kershaw was not a party to that case and, the judge said, could not seek to enforce its undertaking. The ruling said he could rely on appropriate enforcement procedures if an order made in his own case was not obeyed.
The court allowed grounds seeking declarations about the legality of the prison conditions, including the practices described as “slopping out”. It also granted leave on an arguable claim that unreasonable barriers had been placed in the way of Mr Kershaw’s original written application and that the original court order had not been communicated to him promptly, allegedly violating his freedom of expression.
The judge extended the earlier leave to include grounds (iii) to (viii) of Mr Kershaw’s statement of grounds. The grant was without prejudice to any argument by the governor that delay in adding them caused prejudice or otherwise disentitled Mr Kershaw to relief. Any such issue, and the substantive judicial review, were left for the judge who would ultimately hear that application.