The High Court has refused Kevin Coade leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging prison transfers and a disciplinary decision, finding that both complaints were brought well beyond the usual three-month time limit and that no sufficient reason had been given to extend it.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the ruling on 1 December 2021. The application, made by written petition, was received by the High Court on 19 August 2021. The court had directed that the leave application be heard on notice to the respondents, and the Irish Prison Service filed an affidavit in response. The leave application was considered on the papers.
Coade complained that transfers between Cork Prison and Cloverhill Prison in January 2019 had disrupted his preparation for a criminal trial. The Prison Service said he was transferred to Cloverhill on 3 January and returned to Cork on 24 January to facilitate consultations with his legal team. The judgment said his trial appeared to have taken place in February 2019 and that he was convicted. It also said an appeal against his sentence and conviction was withdrawn around October 2020.
The judge held that the transfer complaint was out of time: proceedings were not started until August 2021, more than two years after the transfer, and no explanation for the delay had been provided. He also said any claim that the transfer hindered trial preparation should first have been raised with the Circuit Court trial judge and then, if appropriate, in the appeal. The court therefore considered that an adequate alternative remedy had been available.
The second complaint concerned prison disciplinary proceedings following an incident on 31 December 2018, when a large package was thrown into the prison’s upper yard. Coade was found to have breached discipline by receiving contraband. He appealed to the Minister for Justice and Equality; the appeal was determined on 7 January 2019 and upheld the first-instance decision. The penalty was the loss for 28 days of certain privileges relating to specified activities and evening recreation, and use of money or credit.
The judge said the disciplinary appeal decision was also challenged outside the usual three-month period, with no explanation for the delay. He refused leave to apply for judicial review. This was a decision at the leave stage; the court did not proceed to determine the underlying judicial review claims.