The High Court declared that the Portlaoise Prison Governor acted unlawfully by restricting Derek Devoy’s association with other prisoners without following Prison Rule 62. It did not quash the decision, saying the perceived threat to life persisted, but ordered the Governor to take immediate steps to remedy the illegality. The court reserved costs for further argument.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John Edwards on 22 June 2009, concerned the conditions imposed after Devoy was transferred from Mountjoy Prison to Portlaoise on 20 January 2009. The transfer itself was not the decision under review. The court considered the Governor’s separate decision to restrict Devoy’s association at Portlaoise.
Devoy’s case was that his regime amounted to isolation and was inhumane. The prison authorities disputed that account. Their evidence described a regime in which he shared unlocked time with another prisoner, received family visits and had access to education, exercise, medical care and chaplaincy. The judge concluded the evidence did not establish that Devoy was isolated or treated inhumanely. He had no specific constitutional right to associate with the general prison population, though the court said humane treatment and dignity required prisoners not to be substantially deprived of human company except for relatively brief, defined periods.
The authorities said the restrictions were necessary because confidential information indicated a serious threat to people outside prison and a risk that Devoy could direct criminal activity from custody. The court accepted that the State and its agencies had a constitutional duty to protect life. It also found that Rule 62 could cover restrictions intended to prevent criminal activity directed from prison, including activity outside it.
Rule 62 sets conditions for removing a prisoner from association, including reasonable grounds, limits on duration, regular reviews and written notice of reasons. The court said the rule could, and perhaps should, have been used. The authorities had not shown why they could not use it. Extraordinary reliance on the State’s duty to preserve life was justified only in exceptional circumstances of overwhelming urgency, the judge said, and the evidence did not establish such circumstances.
The court therefore declared the decision unlawful for failure to comply with Rule 62. It declined to grant certiorari, which would have quashed the decision, because the perceived threat remained and the right breached was statutory rather than constitutional or a human right. It said the Governor must immediately remedy the illegality. The judge did not decide the remaining arguments about fair procedures, irrelevant considerations or the adequacy of reasons, and made no order on the request for reasons because Devoy by then knew the basis for the decision.