The High Court has concluded that the Governor of Cloverhill Prison should have formally invoked Rule 62 for Wayne Dundon from at least 9 May 2012, when he was held under a restricted regime in the prison’s high-security unit. The court did not find that his constitutional rights had been breached, and left the wording of the declaration to be settled after further submissions.
Dundon brought judicial review proceedings seeking a declaration that his treatment at Cloverhill between 18 April and 7 September 2012 was unlawful. He argued that he had been kept apart from the main prison population and denied normal access to structured activities and communal recreation without the formal safeguards required by Rule 62 of the Prison Rules 2007.
The respondents said the case was moot because Rule 62 was formally invoked on 7 September 2012, before leave was granted, and Dundon was later transferred. The court rejected that argument: he remained subject to the Prison Rules, and the possibility of similar restrictions was not purely hypothetical. The judge also noted the respondents’ evidence that the September decision was a pragmatic response to the litigation, intended to save time and expense; she did not decide whether that was improper.
The Governor said Dundon was placed in the high-security D1 unit, and temporarily in D2, after consideration of his security risk, past disciplinary history and confidential information. The Governor cited concerns about safety, good order and the welfare of staff and prisoners. Dundon disputed the allegations drawn from confidential material and said his restricted association and lack of educational activity left him in conditions comparable to Rule 62 detention before the formal direction.
The judge accepted that the Governor could place prisoners in different security areas and found no reason to criticise Dundon’s placement in the high-security unit. But she concluded that where restrictions on association reach the point at which Rule 62 applies, the rule should be invoked so its notice and oversight safeguards operate. For much of the period, Dundon had continuous association with only one other prisoner, with some contact with another. His situation did not materially change after the formal direction.
The court said the Governor should have considered relaxing the regime or invoking Rule 62 when the unit’s numbers fell and Dundon was not authorised to take part in education, work or training. On the evidence, the judge said there were grounds to invoke it from at least 9 May 2012. Formal application would have brought regular review and notification, and Director of the Prison Service oversight if the restrictions continued beyond three weeks.
The judge found no legitimate complaint about family visits and no established breach of constitutional rights. She made no final order in the judgment, saying she would hear the parties further on the declaration’s content.