The High Court granted declarations allowing prison authorities to respect a prisoner’s decision to refuse food and related medical treatment, finding he had capacity to make that decision. The orders were made after an urgent plenary hearing on 15 May 2020, with the prisoner consenting to the declarations sought.
The prisoner, identified in the judgment as GDC, began a hunger strike on 29 March 2020. He was protesting his conviction, his treatment by the criminal justice system and the State’s treatment of his family. By the hearing, he had gone 48 days without food, though he was drinking water and coffee. He had lost 13 kilograms and was experiencing low blood sugar, low blood pressure, weakness and dizziness. His health was also affected by a heart attack in October 2019, after which three stents were inserted.
Two psychiatrists who examined him testified that he had capacity to refuse food and medical treatment and that his decision was not influenced by mental illness. The judge found that he understood the possible consequences, including unconsciousness, organ failure and cardiac arrest. The prisoner asked the court to recognise his autonomy and self-determination. No party argued against the declarations.
The court declared that he had capacity to refuse nourishment and medical assistance arising from that refusal; that his decision remained valid if he later became incapable of deciding; that the prison governor’s decision not to force-feed him was lawful; and that the governor could give effect to his wishes. The judgment records that the court had previously granted those orders. It did not grant the alternative request for directions about emergency care.
The judge considered earlier High Court decisions addressing hunger strikes and prisoners’ rights, distinguishing cases involving a prisoner lacking capacity or different relief. She held that a prisoner retains constitutional rights to autonomy and bodily integrity, and that enforcing a prison sentence did not override those rights where doing so would require force-feeding. The court also referred to prison rules requiring consent to treatment, subject to stated exceptions, and the Prison Service protocol against force-feeding prisoners with full capacity who refuse nourishment.
The judgment says the prisoner stopped his hunger strike after the hearing, of his own choosing. The court urged him to stop, but the decision to do so was his.