The High Court found that failures to deal promptly with a prisoner’s complaints helped turn his food refusal into a prolonged hunger strike, and awarded him €5,000 in damages. The court said the delays did not cause him to start the strike, but made it harder for him to stop and contributed to a protest that put his health at serious risk.
The anonymised plaintiff had been held at X Prison since 2011 under a separation regime, spending 23 hours a day in his cell. He said changes to the exercise arrangements and food delivery in 2014 led him to refuse meals and later begin a hunger strike in February 2015. He feared other prisoners might contaminate his food and refused to use an exercise yard overlooked by cells.
The plaintiff alleged that the conditions and the prison’s response breached his rights and amounted to negligence. The court rejected his claim that the conditions of detention breached national or international rights. It found that he had chosen to remain separated from other prisoners and was not held in “solitary confinement” in the sense used in the legal authorities. It also found little risk that other prisoners would contaminate his meals, while accepting that he honestly believed there was such a risk.
The judgment identified serious shortcomings in the prison’s complaints system. Two complaints made on 10 February 2015, about food and exercise, were not categorised until 25 February and were dealt with on 27 March. The judge found that the system was under-resourced and failed to meet basic standards of fairness and procedural correctness. The prison had encouraged the plaintiff to use that process, which the court found was one of the few constructive ways available to him to raise grievances.
The court found the complaints delays did not cause the hunger strike, but contributed to its escalation. On 20 February 2015, the plaintiff wrote that he did not want medical or nutritional treatment if he became incapable of deciding for himself. The judge found a direct connection between the failure to deal with his complaints and his determination to continue the strike, even if it caused his death. Prison authorities, the court said, failed to appreciate that this protest had become different from his earlier food refusals and required more focused engagement.
The judge found that the prison’s negligent handling of the complaints accelerated and worsened the strike. However, the court awarded nominal damages of €5,000, reasoning that the prison did not cause the plaintiff to begin the strike and that his injury was the pain and distress of going without food. No evidence was presented of lasting physical or psychological effects. The judgment does not specify any further order.