The Court of Appeal has dismissed an anonymised child detainee’s appeal over separation measures imposed at Oberstown Children Detention Centre in September 2018, finding they were a proportionate response to urgent safety and welfare concerns, not punishment.
The appellant, who was 15 at the time, had challenged measures applied after a prolonged stand-off at the campus sports hall on 16 September 2018. The Director’s evidence, which the judgment said was not disputed, was that the appellant and two other young people refused to leave the hall for about eight hours. The appellant used abusive and threatening language towards staff and later threatened staff and fellow residents.
A six-day plan ran to 24 September. The appellant stayed in his bedroom but could use the yard and multi-purpose room, make calls to family members, his girlfriend and solicitor, and receive educational materials. He had a solicitor consultation and the restrictions were reduced over the period. The Director said separation was imposed under Oberstown’s Single Separation Policy to protect the appellant, other residents and staff, and to maintain campus security.
The appellant argued that separation was punishment and that he should have received written reasons, notice of its duration, an opportunity to make representations and an appeal. He also argued that the different procedural rules for child detainees and adult prisoners breached the constitutional guarantee of equality. The respondents maintained that the measures were protective and that the adult prison rules did not apply.
In a judgment delivered on 18 September 2020, Máire Whelan J. said the evidence did not support the claim that the appellant had been subjected to an ad hoc punishment regime. She described the measures as limited, reduced in severity and carried out in the appellant’s familiar surroundings, with access to exercise, education and telephone contact. The court concluded they were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
The court held that the measures did not amount to punishment and that the claimed breach of fair procedures was therefore not maintainable. It also said that, even if an entitlement to fair procedures had been established, the High Court’s conclusion that the procedures had not been breached was sound on the evidence. The court rejected the equality argument, finding the proposed comparison between a child detainee and an adult prisoner was inapt given the distinct statutory regimes.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving in place the High Court’s refusal of judicial review. The Court of Appeal did not settle costs in this judgment: it gave the appellant 21 days to file submissions on the appropriate costs order, with the respondents given a like period to respond.