The High Court has refused Brandon Crosbie’s application for an order requiring the Governor of Mountjoy Prison to tell his solicitor why he had been held in a special observation cell and for how long. The court found that request was moot by the time it was heard and that Crosbie lacked standing to pursue it. It did not rule on whether the detention itself was lawful or whether the GDPR applied to the information held by prison authorities.
Crosbie was placed in the cell on 18 December 2018 and transferred to the prison’s challenging behavioural unit on 23 December. The court said the Governor’s evidence was that Crosbie had seriously assaulted another prisoner and was placed in the cell to prevent imminent injury to himself or others, after less restrictive methods of control were considered inadequate under Rule 64 of the Prison Rules.
Crosbie’s solicitor had contacted the prison seeking the reasons and proposed duration. Prison staff declined to provide information by phone, citing data-protection constraints and an inability to confirm the caller’s identity. The prison’s policy required written consent from a prisoner before disclosing personal information to a solicitor, along with confirmation of identity. The court noted that the solicitor had not supplied signed consent or proof of identity, sought a prison visit, or explained why those steps were not taken.
The solicitor obtained leave to bring judicial review proceedings on 24 December 2018, but only for limited relief, including an order for the information and a declaration about data-protection law. By then Crosbie had left the special observation cell. The judge said the requested information was known by 27 December, when Crosbie and his solicitor spoke by phone, or at the latest by 8 January 2019, when the Assistant Governor’s affidavit set out the reasons and duration.
The judge held that the request for an order was moot because the information had since been provided and no live dispute remained. The related request for a declaration was also moot. She further found that neither the solicitor nor Crosbie had established standing: there was no evidence that Crosbie had asked for the information, authorised the proceedings when leave was sought, or shown how the refusal adversely affected his rights of access to the courts.
The judgment expressly did not address the legality of Crosbie’s detention, as the proceedings were not amended to challenge it. Nor did the court decide whether the GDPR or the Law Enforcement Directive applied to prison authorities. Justice Niamh Hyland said those complex questions were not fully argued and should be considered in a case where the applicant has standing and the requested relief is not moot. She refused the reliefs sought.