The High Court has refused a Mountjoy Prison inmate’s application for judicial review over periods he spent in the prison’s challenging behaviour unit (CBU), where prisoners are held alone for much of the day. The court found the placements lawful and proportionate, and said prolonged stays were in significant part due to his refusal of offers to move to other accommodation.
In a judgment delivered on 24 January 2025, Mr Justice Barr considered whether the prison governor’s decisions to place the applicant in the CBU were lawful. The case was limited to periods from August 2022 onwards, with later periods also considered because the alleged isolation was an ongoing, though intermittent, situation. The court was not hearing appeals against individual disciplinary findings.
The applicant alleged that prison disciplinary records had been fabricated to justify his isolation, and that proposed moves subject to progression plans were a form of “mind games”. The prison authorities denied this. Governor II David Treacy gave evidence that CBU placements were used for safety and good order, not as punishment for disciplinary breaches. He said the applicant had refused 29 offers of alternative accommodation.
The judge accepted Treacy’s evidence and found that the applicant’s conduct at the relevant times justified CBU placements to maintain good order and protect staff and prisoners. The court also accepted that prison officials kept the placements under review. It found that the applicant had refused offers to move to protection groups, and said his continued stay in isolation accommodation following those refusals was voluntary. The judgment does not identify the applicant by name.
The court also considered the time the applicant spent out of his cell. Treacy accepted that staffing constraints sometimes prevented a full two hours out of cell each day. The judge nevertheless found that the applicant’s rights in this respect had not been infringed.
The court concluded there had been no breach of the applicant’s rights and refused the relief sought in the judicial review. It did not issue a final order or rule on costs in this judgment. Instead, the parties were given two weeks to make brief written submissions on those matters; the court would then decide whether another hearing was needed.