The Court of Appeal has allowed the Governor of Wheatfield Prison’s appeals and set aside High Court declarations and orders concerning Daniel McDonnell’s detention under protective separation directions. The court did not rule that restrictive conditions could continue indefinitely: it said the decision addressed the evidence available at the time and did not prevent a future application if circumstances changed.
McDonnell is serving a life sentence for the murder of Melanie McCarthy McNamara. Prison authorities said he faced a serious threat from other prisoners connected with the victim, and that he was at risk across the prison system. He had been held apart from most prisoners under Rule 63 of the Prison Rules 2007 since arriving at Wheatfield in February 2014.
The High Court had found that the restrictions breached McDonnell’s constitutional rights and ordered the Governor to provide specified daily social interaction and two family visits a week. The Court of Appeal reviewed two sets of judicial review proceedings: the first was decided on affidavit evidence, while the second included detailed oral evidence from the Governor. The appeal court noted the difficulties of resolving disputed facts on affidavits and said the fuller evidence in the second case gave a more accurate picture.
The Court of Appeal described McDonnell’s conditions as harsh, difficult and stressful, but found that the evidence did not support the High Court’s conclusions of an ongoing constitutional breach or a need for the specific orders. It said the arrangements were imposed for protection, were subject to ongoing review, and included contact with family, visitors and medical and psychological services. The court also noted that the prison authorities were trying to improve conditions, while the risks and limited opportunities for contact on the wing constrained what could be arranged.
The court rejected the view that Rule 63 required an end date to be written in advance on each direction. It interpreted the rule as requiring a record of when separation ends, which may not be known when the direction is made. It also found no requirement in the rule that the Governor personally sign each direction.
The judgment said prison governors have a wide margin in assessing safety risks and managing prisons. Courts can review those decisions, but the detailed directions made by the High Court crossed into operational management. The Court of Appeal stressed that severe restrictions may be justified temporarily in the face of a grave threat, but did not endorse indefinite isolation. It said McDonnell could seek relief again if his circumstances changed, and that the appeals did not limit that right.