The High Court has dismissed a prisoner’s judicial review challenge to a disciplinary sanction imposed after he threw a Bible at a sentencing judge, ruling that prison authorities had jurisdiction to discipline him while he was in court custody.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the applicant remained in lawful custody outside prison when the incident occurred. The court rejected the argument that the applicant was then solely in the custody of the Circuit Court and therefore outside the scope of the Prisons Act 2007 and the Prison Rules 2007.
The incident occurred during a sentencing hearing on 29 July 2021. The applicant, who was serving a sentence in Midlands Prison, had been convicted by a jury of other offences on 5 July 2021. He threw a Bible at the judge and was removed from the courtroom, taking part in the remainder of the hearing by video link.
A disciplinary hearing followed, and the Governor of Midlands Prison imposed a sanction that included the loss of prison privileges for 40 days. The applicant petitioned against the sanction under section 14 of the 2007 Act, but the decision was affirmed by the Irish Prison Service’s Operations Directorate.
In his judicial review, the applicant argued that he was not a “prisoner” in “lawful custody” at the time and that his conduct amounted to contempt of court rather than a prison disciplinary breach. He relied on section 40 of the Act, which addresses certain situations where prisoners outside prison may be placed in custody.
The Governor relied on the Act’s definition of “prisoner,” which includes a person in lawful custody outside prison, and provisions allowing prison rules to cover disciplinary breaches committed outside prison while in the custody of a prison officer or prisoner custody officer. The cited rules include assaulting a person as a disciplinary breach.
Mr Justice Meenan held that section 40 does not exhaust the circumstances in which a prisoner may be in lawful custody. He found the applicant was in lawful custody outside prison and that the prison rules applied. The possibility that the conduct could also have been dealt with as contempt of court did not prevent prison authorities from applying the Act and rules.
The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. On costs, the judge gave a provisional view that the respondent was entitled to costs, including reserved costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The applicant could file submissions disputing costs by 14 December 2022, and the matter was listed for final orders on 19 December 2022.