The High Court has declined Gary Kirby’s application for judicial review over a decision to impose six months of screen visits at Limerick Prison.
In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2012, Mr Justice Feeney said Kirby, then a prisoner at Limerick Prison and acting in person, had not provided sufficient facts to support an order quashing the decision. The case was [2012] IEHC 69.
Kirby’s application, dated 12 January 2012, sought an order of mandamus. He said he had received two months “in block” and would then be required to have screen visits for six months. He said he wanted to challenge the screen visits, which he claimed were imposed at Limerick Prison but not at other prisons in Ireland. He described the combined periods as eight months’ punishment.
The judge explained that mandamus compels performance of a public legal duty, after that duty has been demanded and refused. Kirby’s account did not identify the duty he said the prison governor had failed to perform, or any demand and refusal.
The court instead considered the case on the basis that Kirby was seeking certiorari, which can quash a public body’s decision in specified circumstances. Feeney J said the application did not explain the circumstances that led the Governor of Limerick Prison to impose the sanction under the relevant rules and regulations. Apart from the claim that Limerick was the only prison imposing such a rule, Kirby had not identified grounds showing the governor acted outside or abused his jurisdiction. The judge said that claim alone did not require the court to reach such a conclusion.
The court did not determine that the screen-visit decision was lawful on its merits. It declined the judicial review application because the information provided was insufficient to determine that the governor had exceeded or abused his jurisdiction.