The High Court has ruled that the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) has standing to pursue claims about the treatment of prisoners with psychiatric illness at Mountjoy Prison. It also rejected the defendants’ argument that two individual plaintiffs could raise only complaints tied to their own personal circumstances.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gilligan on 2 September 2005, dealt with who could bring the claims. It did not decide whether the alleged deficiencies existed or whether any constitutional rights had been breached.
The IPRT and two individuals, both of whom the judgment says have psychiatric illness and had been held in Mountjoy Men’s Prison, seek declarations concerning psychiatric treatment and facilities at Mountjoy Men’s and Women’s Prisons. The individuals also claim that their own treatment breached their constitutional rights. The defendants deny that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought.
The defendants accepted that the two individuals could rely on allegations connected to their own circumstances. They argued that the individuals could not challenge practices unrelated to those circumstances, such as an alleged failure to employ sufficiently qualified psychiatric nurses. The judge rejected that restriction, saying alleged systematic deficiencies should not be left unchallenged when the individuals’ claims would otherwise be confined to their personal experiences.
The judge also considered the IPRT’s capacity to bring claims concerning prisoners who had not been identified. Under the usual rule, a person challenging an alleged constitutional wrong generally must show that their own interests have been, or may be, adversely affected. But the judgment said that rule may be relaxed where people affected may be unable to assert their rights adequately or in time, and where the organisation seeking to act has a genuine interest.
The judge considered psychiatric prisoners vulnerable and disadvantaged, and found that the IPRT was a bona fide organisation with a shared interest and relevant expertise. He concluded that without the trust, prisoners might lack an effective way to bring the alleged systemic issues before the court. The IPRT must still prove its case at trial under the applicable procedures, the judgment said.
The court therefore declined the defendants’ requests to restrict the two individuals’ standing and ruled that the IPRT had standing to maintain its claims. The underlying claims remain for determination.