Judgment: 2026-07-17 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses Steven Penrose challenge over Mountjoy restricted detention

Court of Appeal · [2026] IECA 137

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Steven Penrose
  • David Treacy
What

Court of Appeal dismisses Steven Penrose challenge over Mountjoy restricted detention

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Court of Appeal
  • High Court
  • Mountjoy Prison
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court rejected that case in January 2025. It accepted evidence from Mountjoy Governor II David Treacy that Penrose's placements in the unit were prompted by challenging behaviour, protection requirements and concerns for the safety of staff and other prisoners rather than punishment.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by life-sentence prisoner Steven Penrose over periods he spent in Mountjoy Prison's Challenging Behaviour Unit, rejecting his claims that the regime was unlawful and based on falsified prison records.

Penrose is serving life imprisonment for murder, imposed in December 2021 and backdated to May 2017. He had sought judicial review of decisions to accommodate him in the unit, which he characterised as solitary confinement, and sought the possibility of damages if the detention was found unlawful.

The High Court rejected that case in January 2025. It accepted evidence from Mountjoy Governor II David Treacy that Penrose's placements in the unit were prompted by challenging behaviour, protection requirements and concerns for the safety of staff and other prisoners rather than punishment.

On appeal, Penrose continued to allege that disciplinary records had been falsified and that prison authorities had suppressed material during discovery. He also accused the High Court judge of attempting to cover up the truth.

The Court of Appeal found no evidential basis for those claims. Mr Justice Edwards said the High Court had been entitled to prefer Treacy's evidence, which had been tested through lengthy cross-examination and was supported by prison records. The appeal court stressed that factual findings supported by credible evidence are generally not open to reversal on appeal.

The court also upheld the High Court's finding that Penrose had refused 29 offers of alternative accommodation outside the unit. His earlier periods of detention before August 2022 were outside the three-month judicial review time limit, with no sufficient basis established for extending time.

The allegation that the High Court judge had acted improperly was dismissed outright, with the Court of Appeal finding no evidence of bias, pre-judgment or any attempted cover-up.

The appeal was dismissed. The court's provisional view was that the respondents should receive their appeal costs, subject to further written submissions from Penrose.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review