The High Court refused an application by prisoners William Boden and Gary Kinsella for an order compelling prison and Garda authorities to let them contact gardaí in person to make criminal complaints against the governors of Midlands and Arbour Hill prisons.
In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2014, Mr Justice Barr said the applicants had not specified the nature of the complaints they wished to make. They sought judicial review against the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and the Governor of Midlands Prison, as well as legal representation under the Custody Issues Scheme.
The applicants said they wanted to speak to gardaí at Portlaoise Garda Station. They claimed that, after asking the Midlands Prison governor for access on 12 March 2014, they were told he could not help and advised them to write to the Garda Commissioner. They said they wrote on 15 March and received a response on 23 March from the Commissioner’s private secretary, Superintendent Frank Walsh, saying the request had been sent to the Assistant Commissioner responsible for policing in Laois.
The applicants said they had not heard from the Assistant Commissioner by the time they began proceedings on 5 April. They also alleged that other prisoners had been given access to gardaí and that prisoners had been unlawfully taken from Midlands Prison to the Criminal Courts of Justice at gardaí’s oral request. The judge said the unsworn draft affidavit contained no evidence supporting those allegations.
The court held that the applicants’ own account showed they could contact gardaí by correspondence, which was sufficient to protect their access while in prison. It said they could complain to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission if dissatisfied with the response. The judge also considered the application premature: on the applicants’ account, the Assistant Commissioner had had about 12 days to respond before proceedings began.
Separately, the grounding affidavit had not been sworn as required by the Rules of the Superior Courts, and the applicants had given no explanation. The judge said there was no evidence properly before the court on which relief could be granted, even if the complaints had merit. The relief sought was refused.