The High Court made no order as to costs in judicial review proceedings brought by Colm Hogan over information about a prison disciplinary matter. The case became moot after Mr Hogan was released from Mountjoy Prison, and the court did not decide any substantive issue.
Mr Hogan had a verbal altercation with a prison nurse on 11 March 2015. The Governor found that a disciplinary incident had occurred and imposed the loss of one evening’s exercise. That sanction was upheld on review on 19 March.
Concerned about whether the incident might affect his expected early release, Mr Hogan’s solicitors sought the disciplinary notice, a contemporaneous record of the hearing, CCTV footage, details of the standard of proof, and information about the inquiry and witnesses.
In an 15 April letter, the Governor’s Office said it did not issue P.19 disciplinary reports directly to solicitors or provide CCTV copies. It said Mr Hogan could request a replacement copy of the report himself, confirmed the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities, and said the sanction had been affirmed on appeal to the Minister. The judge described the response as a good faith effort to provide the fullest possible answer. He also observed that there had been no further correspondence before leave to seek judicial review was requested about two months later.
The judgment contrasted Mr Hogan’s case with Egan v Governor of Wheatfield Prison, where the prisoner’s solicitors had received no meaningful response despite repeated requests while a substantial sanction was underway. The court said prison authorities must act responsibly towards prisoners’ solicitors, who in turn are expected to engage meaningfully and act proportionately. It raised questions about whether Mr Hogan’s solicitors could have sought further explanations for the missing hearing record and refusal of CCTV before starting proceedings.
The court noted that Mr Hogan’s release in September 2015 was at the Minister for Justice’s discretion under the Criminal Justice Act 1960, as amended. It was not the Governor’s decision. Applying Supreme Court guidance on costs in moot cases, the judge concluded that the proceedings had become moot because of a change outside either party’s control. The court therefore made no order as to costs.