The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by a child detained at Oberstown, ruling that six days of separation measures imposed in September 2018 were lawful and proportionate.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 3 May 2019. The applicant, identified as M.G. and represented in the case by his mother and next friend, J.G., sought to have the measures quashed. He argued that they violated his rights to dignity and bodily integrity, that he was entitled to formal procedural safeguards, and that the absence of safeguards comparable to those for adult prisoners breached the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The court heard that the measures followed an incident at Oberstown on 16 September 2018. In an affidavit, the centre’s director described an eight-hour stand-off involving M.G. and two other young people, and said M.G. had used threatening and abusive language towards staff. The director said the later separation plan was for safety and security, not punishment. The judge treated that account as uncontroverted; the applicant did not seek to cross-examine the director.
The judge noted that the applicant’s evidence did not give a detailed account of the measures on each day. He found the measures were limited and became less restrictive over the six-day period. M.G. remained in his own bedroom, had access to exercise, educational and recreational materials, and the multi-purpose room, and could make telephone calls to family members, his girlfriend and his solicitor. Medical attention was available.
The judgment distinguished this case from an earlier Oberstown case, S.F., where the High Court had found serious concerns about the absence of exercise and family contact during a much harsher, three-week separation. Here, the judge found no breach of substantive constitutional rights. Given the urgent safety concerns, limited duration and reduced restrictions, he held that the director was not required to provide the elaborate formal procedures sought by the applicant. He also found no evidence that Oberstown’s July 2018 separation procedures had not been followed.
The court rejected the equality claim, finding that adult prisoners and child detainees were not similarly situated and that the different regimes reflected legitimate differences in capacity and the rehabilitation and welfare needs of children. A claim seeking to compel the Minister to make regulations for children’s detention schools was also dismissed; the relevant legislation gave the Minister a discretionary power. The European Convention claim was not pursued at the hearing, and the judge recorded that the measures did not meet the Article 3 threshold.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.