The High Court has refused a Midlands Prison inmate’s requests for a guarantee of single-cell accommodation and orders concerning his diet and medical care for Crohn’s disease, finding that his evidence did not establish a breach of his constitutional or European Convention rights.
In a judgment delivered on 23 July 2019, Ms Justice Donnelly first extended the time for bringing the judicial review. She said the complaints concerned ongoing issues and alleged breaches of fundamental rights, and that the applicant had repeatedly sought redress within the prison system.
The applicant had sought to overturn a November 2017 decision not to give an unconditional assurance that he would remain in a single cell. He had occupied a double cell alone from July 2016, except for 41 days from September to November 2017, when another prisoner shared it. He said the arrangement caused embarrassment and disrupted his sleep. The respondents said they had tried to accommodate him alone where prison operations allowed, but needed flexibility to manage accommodation and prisoner safety.
The judge accepted that sharing a cell while managing Crohn’s disease must have been difficult and embarrassing. But she found no evidence that the decision was punitive or malicious, or that the applicant had shown a specific medical need for a single cell. The evidence also did not meet the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment or establish an unlawful interference with privacy. The court declined to require a single cell for the rest of his sentence, saying prison management must retain discretion to require cell sharing where appropriate.
The applicant also alleged inadequate food and delays in receiving medication, including vitamins and Motilium. The respondents said his Crohn’s diagnosis was recognised, medical staff had recorded 464 healthcare contacts, and a high-calorie diet had been recommended. The judge found that the evidence showed reasonable efforts to provide suitable food and care, and did not establish a medical need for a personalised diet. She accepted that there had been occasions when medication was not immediately available, but found the delays explained and not shown to be excessive or sustained.
The judgment also considered missed outside appointments. The judge found the evidence did not prove that the respondents prevented the applicant from attending two appointments for an examination by Dr Murat Kirca; both had been arranged at short notice, and the prison had sought to facilitate attendance. A dietician appointment was missed after late notice and a staffing shortage. The judge said the delay in obtaining a dietician appointment was due to usual Health Service Executive delays, rather than the respondents.
Considering the complaints individually and together, the court found no established violation of the applicant’s rights. It concluded that he was not entitled to the relief sought in the judicial review.