The Supreme Court has awarded Gary Simpson one-third of the costs of his High Court case and one-third of reserved costs in the appeal, after finding that substantial dishonesty and exaggeration in his evidence justified a significant reduction.
The costs ruling, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 31 July 2020, followed the Court’s November 2019 decision that conditions in which Simpson was detained infringed his constitutional rights. The Court had granted a declaration under Article 40.3 of the Constitution and awarded him €7,500 in damages. The State respondents accepted that he was entitled to the costs of the appeal. The remaining issue was the costs of the 30-day High Court hearing.
The High Court had granted a declaration that Simpson’s constitutional right to privacy was infringed but refused him costs because of the extent to which he had lied and exaggerated in his testimony. His counsel argued in the Supreme Court that he should receive almost all High Court costs, allowing for four days associated with evidence rejected by the trial judge.
The Supreme Court said the accepted evidence about Simpson’s detention included being confined for up to 23 hours a day with another prisoner, sometimes two others, in a cell without in-cell sanitation. His out-of-cell time was severely restricted, and he had no access to education or work while detained in the D wing of Mountjoy Prison. Those conditions formed the basis for the remedy.
The High Court rejected his claims that the conditions had caused physical or psychological injury, and dismissed allegations of a conspiracy against protection prisoners and other ill-treatment. It also rejected particular claims about prison staff, food, cleaning and the slopping-out process. The Supreme Court said the case could not be divided neatly into successful and unsuccessful issues because serious dishonesty affected substantial parts of the evidence.
Mr Justice MacMenamin said the case was not a complete fabrication: parts of the claim were supported, and the Supreme Court had varied the remedy in Simpson’s favour. But he concluded that a proportionate response required a substantial costs penalty. The Court ordered that he receive 33⅓% of the taxed total of the High Court costs and reserved appeal costs.
The judgment addressed the costs application. It did not revisit the earlier finding on the conditions or the €7,500 damages award.