The High Court refused an application to release a remand prisoner who argued that failures to provide kosher food and access to tefillin made his detention unlawful. Ms Justice Nuala Jackson ruled that the shortcomings did not meet the high threshold for release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.
The applicant, Jonathan Abraham, was remanded at Cloverhill Prison under a District Court warrant issued on 6 August 2024, which required his detention until 20 August. He did not challenge the warrant or the certification of his detention. The High Court inquiry concerned whether the conditions in prison made that otherwise authorised detention unlawful.
The judgment says prison authorities accepted that food provided to Abraham had not consistently met kosher requirements. Although some food complied, he had been left with a very restricted diet and had received food described as kosher that did not meet the relevant standards. The court also heard that prison officials had initially refused him access to his tefillin, religious items with long leather straps. The Assistant Governor cited concerns about their possible use as a ligature or weapon, and about concealing contraband.
During the proceedings, the prison offered supervised access to the tefillin for up to an hour daily. The applicant accepted that this issue had been resolved. The Assistant Governor also acknowledged the food failures and committed to sourcing fully compliant kosher meals through a recommended supplier. The judge said arrangements had been made, though ordering had been delayed because the supplier could not be contacted on the Sabbath.
Abraham’s counsel argued that the dietary failure breached Prison Rule 23(2) and was serious enough to invalidate his detention. Counsel sought his release on bail until the promised changes were fully implemented. The prison’s counsel argued that Article 40.4 was not the appropriate remedy and that the circumstances did not meet the exceptional standard for release based on prison conditions.
The judge found that the prison had failed to comply with the rules on religious dietary practices. However, she concluded that the evidence did not establish a conscious and deliberate violation of constitutional rights, inhuman or degrading treatment, or a serious threat to life or health. She also considered the prison’s acknowledged shortcomings and steps to address them.
The court ruled that the lawfulness of Abraham’s detention had been proved and that the current conditions did not require his release under Article 40.4.2. The judgment noted that other remedies, potentially including mandamus or a mandatory injunction, might be available; it did not decide those questions. It also said remedies outside Article 40.4 could be pursued if further failures occurred. The judgment did not determine the criminal charge against Abraham.