The High Court directed that an allegation by prisoner Mark McMenamin that he was not being facilitated to attend hospital or see a liver specialist should be enquired into. The court made no finding on whether access had been denied or whether his medical treatment was adequate.
In a judgment delivered on 29 June 2012, Mr Justice Hanna considered McMenamin’s application, dated 16 April and received by the judge on 11 June. McMenamin sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings seeking mandamus against the Governor of Wheatfield Prison. In a brief handwritten statement, he said he wanted access to a hospital and liver specialist for treatment of an illness he described as extremely serious. The alleged failure by the prison authorities to facilitate that access was implicit in his application.
The judge referred to an earlier High Court judgment concerning a prisoner’s complaint about appointments with a heart specialist. That judgment stated that a prisoner is entitled to some treatment for an illness, but not to treatment of their choice or necessarily the best available treatment. It also said that an allegation of failure to facilitate hospital attendance called for some enquiry, while the prison authorities’ decisions about prisoners’ location should not be interfered with without hearing from the respondent.
Adopting a similar approach, Hanna said the allegation concerning access to hospital and specialist treatment in the face of the liver disease McMenamin claimed to have warranted enquiry. He did not order mandamus or direct that McMenamin receive particular treatment.
The judgment gave McMenamin liberty to bring a motion seeking mandamus on four clear days’ notice to the respondent, if the judge was available. Any such motion must include a comprehensive statement setting out the factual background. If the judge was unavailable and a genuine medical emergency arose, an application could be brought to the Judicial Review list.
The respondent was to be notified of the order as set out in the earlier judgment, and both parties were to receive a copy of the judgment forthwith. McMenamin could apply for a production order on two clear days’ notice if he wished to appear in person; the respondent could oppose that application. The judge urged the parties to resolve any grounds for complaint without further court proceedings, but said he could not direct them to do so.