The High Court dismissed a prisoner’s judicial review application over the inadvertent recording of calls with his solicitors, finding no basis to grant any of the relief he sought.
Mr Justice Noonan said it was “beyond dispute” that the calls should not have been recorded. But the evidence was that neither the Irish Prison Service nor anyone else had accessed them or learned their contents, and that the recordings were inadvertent.
The applicant had sought injunctions restricting the interception and recording of calls, declarations that the prison authorities had acted beyond their powers, damages, and information about the details and contents of recorded calls.
He was held in Cloverhill Prison while awaiting trial and during his trial in 2013. After his conviction, he was imprisoned at Midlands Prison. The judgment records that he was convicted of multiple offences, including rape and sexual assault, and that those convictions were under appeal at the time.
The Irish Prison Service’s evidence was that an anomaly in its prisoner phone system led to calls being recorded when solicitor numbers were entered on lines other than the designated solicitor line. A review initially identified 12 calls as potentially affected. Further examination found that seven were to solicitors: five to Andrew Valley of Partners at Law Solicitors and two to M.S. Solicitors. The other five were to a forensic computer company in the United Kingdom.
The applicant argued in court that particular calls had been recorded deliberately, pointing to calls on 7 May and 23 July 2013. He also said that during a call on 23 July he discussed defence matters concerning a proposed witness. The judge said the evidence that the recordings were inadvertent was unchallenged. Whether the calls affected the trial or conviction was not an issue for this judicial review.
The judge found that the applicant had produced no evidence of prejudice from what he described as, at most, a technical infringement of his rights. He said the authorities notified those concerned and took steps to correct the problem after it came to light. The court also accepted that the applicant had been given the necessary details of the calls and a means of accessing their contents, although the respondents had not accessed them.
As there was no ongoing or threatened infringement, the claims for injunctions and declarations were moot. The judge said damages could not arise without demonstrated prejudice or loss, and exemplary or punitive damages could not arise in the absence of a deliberate violation. The application was dismissed.