The High Court has refused a judicial review application by Peter Clarke, a vulnerable prisoner serving sentences for sexual offences, who argued that prison was an inappropriate environment and sought State help to identify supervised accommodation for his release.
In a judgment delivered on 4 September 2014, Mr Justice Birmingham said the court would not intervene. The application did not seek Clarke’s release or a direction placing him in a particular facility. His lawyers had also not pressed a request for an order requiring the authorities to arrange accommodation. The court refused the reliefs sought.
Clarke was serving a five-year sentence imposed in January 2013 for two sexual assaults to which he had pleaded guilty. The sentence was backdated to September 2011, with seven years of post-release supervision; his appeal against its severity had not yet been heard. In March 2014, he received a further five-year sentence, with the final three years suspended, after being convicted of two counts of sexual exploitation of a child. The order left his release date unchanged at 9 June 2015.
The judgment described a history of sexually inappropriate behaviour and reported that Clarke had been diagnosed with schizophrenia about 30 years earlier, though that diagnosis was not actively followed up. More recent assessments focused on possible frontal-lobe dementia. Prison psychiatrists reviewed him regularly, and he was on a waiting list for transfer to the Central Mental Hospital for further assessment. The judgment also recorded that he had been assaulted by other prisoners and that prison specialists considered prison an unsuitable setting for him.
Clarke had applied to the nursing home support scheme, but the Health Service Executive refused the application and rejected an appeal. The HSE accepted that he might require continuous behavioural monitoring and same-sex living arrangements with male staff, but concluded that his needs did not amount to a need for nursing-home care. The judge questioned whether a nursing home could provide the required setting.
The judge said Clarke’s vulnerability was not in doubt, but he was imprisoned under sentences that had not been altered on appeal. Court orders directing services or accommodation could affect how the executive allocates limited resources and prioritises applicants. The broader proposal for a supervised residential unit, potentially supported by compulsory arrangements after release, raised issues that the judge said were too far-reaching for declaratory orders.
The court also considered the post-release situation uncertain, including whether Clarke would need further care or might return to prison. Mr Justice Birmingham said any challenge to the appropriateness of the sentence should be pursued through the criminal appeal process. He expressed sympathy for Clarke but concluded that court intervention was not appropriate and refused the application.