The Court of Appeal has set aside a €5,000 damages award and a declaration against the Governor of X Prison over delays in handling complaints made by prisoner P. McD. It held that the Irish Prison Service complaints policy did not create a duty of care actionable in negligence. The court also set aside the costs orders made by the High Court and outlined proposed replacement orders, subject to written submissions.
P. McD had complained about changes to his exercise arrangements and the delivery of his meals. He began refusing food in February 2015 and continued a hunger strike for about 50 days. The High Court later found that prison authorities had failed to handle his complaints promptly and fairly, and that their inaction made the protest more serious. It did not find that the prison conditions breached his constitutional or European Convention rights, and the prisoner did not appeal that part of the decision.
The High Court awarded €5,000 and declared that the Governor had breached the Prisoner Complaints Policy. The Governor appealed, arguing that the policy’s failure to create a statutory obligation meant its breach could not support a negligence claim for damages.
The Court of Appeal agreed. It said that a negligence claim requires a duty of care, a breach and resulting damage. The policy was a general statement of the Prison Service’s approach to complaints, with no statutory force. In the court’s view, adopting a policy intended to benefit prisoners did not, by itself, amount to an undertaking to operate it in a way that created a private law duty of care.
The court acknowledged the trial judge’s finding of a serious failure to follow the policy and described that failure as regrettable. But it concluded that the policy did not give P. McD a right to damages for its breach. It also declined to grant declaratory relief, saying no breach of a justiciable right had been identified and that the issue was largely moot because P. McD had since been released.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the damages, declaration and costs orders. It proposed no order as to costs for the appeal, while proposing that the Governor receive the High Court costs because P. McD had failed to establish the alleged rights breaches. Either party could submit written arguments on costs within 14 days, with the other party then having the same period to respond. The judgment was delivered by Noonan J. with Haughton and Murray JJ. agreeing.