The Supreme Court has varied a High Court order and awarded Gary Simpson €7,500 in compensatory damages after finding that conditions during his detention as a protection prisoner in Mountjoy Prison infringed his constitutional rights.
Simpson was held on the prison’s D1 landing from 13 February to 30 September 2013. The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 14 November 2019, said he spent much of that period sharing a cell, sometimes with two other prisoners. The cells had no toilet, basin or privacy screen. Prisoners used chamber pots and buckets of water, and the Court noted restrictions on time outside cells, showers, education and work.
The High Court had declared that Simpson’s constitutional right to privacy was breached, but refused damages and costs because it found that he had lied and exaggerated significant parts of his claim. The defendants did not appeal the declaration. On Simpson’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the conditions infringed his rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution, including privacy and the values of dignity and autonomy. It said the Prison Service had been on notice of overcrowding and accommodation problems but had not taken adequate steps to address them.
The Court rejected the attempt to use European Court of Human Rights Article 3 principles as direct building blocks for a domestic constitutional damages claim. It said prison conditions must be assessed cumulatively under the Constitution, considering factors such as the duration of detention, cell space, overcrowding, sanitation, hygiene and time outside the cell.
The Supreme Court accepted that Simpson’s evidence included serious lies and exaggerations, but concluded they did not amount to a fraudulent claim or an abuse of process. It found that the conditions caused stress, though there was no diagnosable psychological illness or significant physical injury. It considered a declaration alone insufficient and awarded moderate compensatory damages of €7,500. It did not award punitive or exemplary damages.
The award was against the Irish Prison Service alone, not the other respondents. The Court did not decide costs in this judgment. It directed that further submissions be made about the time spent on the various issues in the High Court before the costs question was determined. The judgment stressed that the award was tied to this case’s facts and was not a benchmark for other prison-condition claims.