The High Court directed that evidence be returned on three disputed issues in Michael Byrne’s habeas corpus application concerning his medical care in Mountjoy Prison. The court did not decide whether his detention was lawful or resolve the complaints. In an addendum dated 4 February, it recorded that Byrne withdrew the application after the parties said they had reached arrangements; the court did not examine or approve those arrangements.
Byrne applied under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution for release, claiming that his medical condition was critical and that prison care put his life in peril. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 28 January 2013, says Byrne was serving a six-year sentence for manslaughter imposed from 31 July 2009, with release due in early 2014.
The court described a serious medical condition following surgery for bladder augmentation, including short bowel syndrome and digestive complications. Prison authorities said Byrne had daily access to a general practitioner, nursing cover day and night, hospital visits and appropriate antibiotics for recurrent urinary tract infections. They also said his weight was stable without artificial food supplements and that he received normal food. Byrne disputed the adequacy of his medical care and diet, alleging untreated pain, deprivation and bullying. These accounts were contested; the court did not make findings on them.
A further dispute concerned retinitis pigmentosa, which can cause progressive sight loss. Byrne said the condition was being ignored. The authorities said it had been diagnosed at the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital and that he had not followed up on appointments offered for treatment. The judgment also noted the possible benefit of a computer with enhanced-visibility software.
The court said the contest could not be resolved without oral evidence and identified three questions: whether Byrne had received treatment for retinitis pigmentosa; whether his diet was insufficient given his small bowel syndrome; and whether his medical care for that condition was inadequate. It directed a return with evidence on those issues for the morning of 30 January and ordered that Byrne be produced in court. It said his affidavit, sworn on 17 September 2011, could be treated as evidence and gave leave for a notice to cross-examine to be served.
The addendum says the parties attended at the appointed time. After being asked to review and approve proposed care arrangements, the court refused, explaining that its habeas corpus role was to inquire whether detention was lawful, not to set accommodation or treatment terms or determine a settlement. The parties later reported reaching arrangements and said the application was being withdrawn. The court noted the withdrawal and filed a document, without inquiry into the arrangements.