The High Court refused an application to release Samuel Connolly, finding that his detention under a 23-hour lock-up regime was in accordance with law at the time of the application. The court said the conditions could compromise constitutional rights if they continued indefinitely for an extended period of months.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 16 July 2013 in an inquiry under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. Connolly was serving a seven-year sentence, with the final two years suspended, following convictions in June 2010 for causing serious harm and two assault offences. His release was scheduled for December 2013.
Connolly was HIV positive, had epilepsy and was homosexual. He said he was raped and slashed by a cellmate at Mountjoy Prison in September 2011. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to bring charges, and a prison investigation remained unfinished. The judge said there was no suggestion the incident had not occurred as Connolly described and proceeded on the basis that the rape happened as alleged.
After returning to Wheatfield Prison in February 2013, Connolly sought protection from the general prison population because he feared homophobic victimisation. Prison authorities considered his safety not to be at risk there, but he requested the restricted regime and a single cell. The regime was reviewed monthly and was not imposed as punishment. Connolly spent 23 hours a day locked in his cell, had meals there, and could spend one hour outside, including in the yard with prisoners from his landing. He had a bed, television, reading material, toilet and sink, but could not take part in training or recreation.
The judge distinguished Connolly’s circumstances from an earlier case involving a prisoner kept in a padded cell with little beyond a mattress and a cardboard box. That earlier confinement had been found to breach constitutional protections. Connolly’s conditions were substantially better, the judge said, including because television and reading material provided regular engagement with sight and sound.
The court held that the present conditions did not yet violate the constitutional guarantee to protect the person, despite Connolly’s limited human contact. It said solitary or near-solitary confinement should be exceptional, monitored and regularly reviewed. The judge warned that detention for an extended period of months without variation might compromise the constitutional guarantees, but said it was premature to decide what might arise in a future case. The Article 40.4.2 application was refused.