The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Governor of Cloverhill Prison’s appeal against a High Court declaration that he acted beyond his jurisdiction by excluding solicitor Caroline Egan from the prison under Rule 36(9)(c) of the Prison Rules 2007.
In a judgment delivered on 7 May 2024, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the rule did not authorise a governor to bar a solicitor from visiting clients simply because of alleged rudeness or passive aggression towards prison staff. The rule concerns matters including prison safety, secure custody and good order, which the court said were not imperilled by the conduct alleged in this case.
The governor barred Ms Egan from entering Cloverhill in June 2022 after receiving complaints from prison staff about her interactions with them. The complaints included allegations about her telephone manner and emails. The judgment noted that the governor’s counsel accepted an email Ms Egan had sent seeking access to a client was not unprofessional, rude or degrading. No other solicitor was shown to have been banned from visiting Cloverhill.
Before the ban, Ms Egan was invited to meet the governor to discuss the complaints, but was not given their details. The court found she was not told that failing to attend or reply could itself lead to exclusion. It said the proposed meetings were intended to allow her to express regret and give assurances, rather than to hear her account or let her answer the allegations. After the ban, the exclusion was open-ended; the governor said it could be reviewed following a meeting.
The court also found that the ban significantly disrupted Ms Egan’s ability to practise as a sole practitioner. She had said that video consultations were only partly available and that she had been unable to meet clients in person, including to swear affidavits for High Court bail proceedings. The court concluded that her entitlement to due process was engaged and not respected.
Mr Justice O’Moore said the blanket, indefinite exclusion was also disproportionate. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s declaration that the governor had acted in excess of jurisdiction. It said the decision was also vitiated by failures of natural justice and proportionality. The judgment did not determine costs: that issue and any other outstanding matters were listed for a brief hearing on 10 May 2024.