The High Court has refused an application by Alan Coyne to cross-examine two prison officials in his judicial review proceedings over Covid-19 confinement at Castlerea Prison in February 2022.
Ms Justice Denise Brett ruled on 18 June 2024 that the proposed questioning would amount to exploration of the issues rather than resolving a factual conflict that had to be decided for the case to proceed fairly. The application before her concerned cross-examination only; the judgment does not determine the underlying claim for damages or whether the confinement breached any rights.
Coyne’s proceedings arose from close-confinement measures imposed from 14 to 28 February 2022 after he was identified as a close contact of Covid-19 in the prison. In July 2023, the High Court granted leave to pursue a more limited set of claims: damages and related declarations. Relief relating directly to the Covid regime was refused as effectively spent.
The respondents filed affidavits in February 2024 from Donna Creaven, the Irish Prison Service’s director of corporate services, and Niall Higgins, an assistant governor at Castlerea. Creaven described the systems used to manage Covid outbreaks in prisons. Higgins outlined the prison’s cleaning arrangements. Coyne did not file a personal affidavit disputing their accounts.
His solicitor, Fiona Baxter, sought leave to cross-examine both officials. She pointed to Coyne remaining in quarantine after a negative Covid test, alleged uncertainty about shower access, differences between the quarantine period and the return to work of prison officers, and an earlier assertion that Coyne had been refused cleaning materials. His counsel argued that questioning was warranted to examine the rationale for the restrictions and issues of proportionality and rights.
The respondents argued that the request was too broad and that the affidavits disclosed no material conflict requiring oral questioning. They acknowledged a difference concerning the cleaning regime but said it did not warrant cross-examination.
Justice Brett applied the established test for judicial review proceedings based on affidavits: cross-examination is an exception and requires a conflict that must be resolved to determine the case fairly. She found no challenging evidence from Coyne about the Covid procedures described by Creaven. The cleaning-products assertion appeared in his solicitor’s affidavit, rather than in evidence sworn by Coyne himself, and the judge found it insufficient to establish the necessary conflict.
The judge said arguments about proportionality and rights could be made through legal submissions on the facts in the affidavits. She also noted that the remaining substantive relief was damages, and that the proceedings had not been converted to a plenary action involving full oral evidence. She refused the cross-examination application.