BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> McCarthy -v- Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2009] IEHC 513 (25 November 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2009/H513.html Cite as: [2009] IEHC 513 |
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Mc Carthy -v- Governor of Mountjoy Prison Composition of Court: Judgment by: Edwards J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] IEHC 513 THE HIGH COURT 2009 1183 JR
PAUL McCARTHY APPLICANT AND
THE GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON RESPONDENT
Background to the application The Prison Rules Section 35 of the Prisons Act 2007 empowers the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make prison rules. Subsections (1) and (2) respectively of s.35 provide: “(1) The Minister may make rules for the regulation and good government of prisons. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) and to Part 3, such rules may provide for— (a) the duties and conduct of the governor and officers of a prison, (d) the provision of facilities and services to prisoners, including educational facilities, medical services and services relating to their general moral and physical welfare, The Prison Rules 2007 were made by the Minister pursuant to his power under s.35 of the 2007 Act. Rule 110 thereof provides: “110. (1) In so far as is practicable, a broad and flexible programme of education shall be provided in each prison to meet the needs of prisoners, through helping them - (a) cope with their imprisonment, (b) achieve personal development, (c) prepare for life after their release from prison, and (d) establish the appetite and capacity for lifelong learning. (2) In particular, the programme referred to in paragraph (1) shall:
(b) give special attention to prisoners with basic educational needs, including literacy and numeracy needs. (4) The Governor, prison officers and all persons employed or engaged in the provision of services to prisoners shall actively encourage and facilitate participation in education as provided in the prison. (5) The programme referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided in partnership with community based education bodies. (6) In so far as is practicable, a library and information centre shall be provided in each prison, providing regular access to a wide range of informational, educational and recreational resources catering for the needs and interests of all prisoners. (7) Subject to the maintenance of good order and safe and secure custody, each prisoner shall be entitled to avail of the library service provided in the prison at least once a week and be actively encouraged to make full use of it. (8) (Not relevant) (9) (Not relevant)” Decision The first thing to be said is that the requirement under the rules to provide “a broad and flexible programme of education” is qualified by the phrase “in so far as is practicable”. No information has been provided to the Court as to why the applicant has not been afforded access to education and literacy training, and so the Court cannot foreclose on the possibility that there may be specific reasons why it is impractical to do so in the applicant’s particular case. That said, because of the positive obligation on the respondent under Rule 110(4) of encouragement and facilitation it seems to me that the applicant has raised an arguable point as to whether the Prison Rules are being complied with in his case, and I am therefore disposed to grant him leave to apply for an order of mandamus directing the respondent to comply with the Prison Rules and/or a declaration that the respondent has failed to comply with the Prison Rules. The latter relief is being allowed as there may be arguments, based on the doctrine of separation of powers, as to why the former relief would be inappropriate in the circumstances of the case. The applicant clearly did not fill up the documentation in this case himself although he has appended his signature to it. It is clear that because of his lack of education and his illiteracy that he will need legal assistance to prosecute these proceedings. I will grant the applicant a recommendation under the Attorney General’s scheme so that he may instruct a Solicitor and one Counsel to represent him. I will fix the 8th of December 2009 as the return date in the first instance and will ask my registrar to forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief State Solicitor on behalf of the Governor of Mountjoy Prison. A formal order will be perfected in due course and furnished to the applicant who should then arrange for it to be served formally on the Chief State Solicitor at Osmond House, Little Ship Street, Dublin 8, together with a copy of his “Statement Required to Ground Application for Judicial Review By a Personal Applicant” and his affidavit sworn on the 31st of October, 2009. Unless and/or until the applicant has instructed a legal team he is hereby granted liberty to apply in writing to the High Court, and on at least four days notice to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison, for a production order if he wishes to be personally in attendance on the 8th of December, 2009. However, once he has instructed a solicitor (assuming he is willing to do so) the solicitor must thereafter make applications of that sort, or any other necessary applications, in the normal way.
|