Cahill v Governor of Curragh Military Detention Barracks

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Finlay P.
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1980
• Neutral Citation: 1980 WJSC-HC 2147
• Date: 31 July 1980

1980 WJSC-HC 2147

THE HIGH COURT

CAHILL v. GO v. MILITARY DETENTION CAMP.

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 40 (4) (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND INTHE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

ANTHONY CAHILL

Applicant

and

THE GOVERNOR OF THE MILITARY DETENTION BARRACKS CURRAGHCAMP

Respondent

1 Judgment delivered on the 31st day of July 1980 Finlay P.

2 This is an application under Article 40 of the Constitution for an enquiry into the legality of the detention of the Applicant. The Applicant is serving a number of concurrent sentences for robbery, possession of firearms with intent to endanger life, and receiving stolen goods, the maximum length of which is 9 years imprisonment. The Applicant was originally detained in Mountjoy Prison but in August of 1979 was transferred to the Curragh Military Detention Barracks and is still there detained. The matter first came before me as the result of an application for an enquiry under Article 40 made by the Applicant'sbrotherone John Cahill who is also a prisoner serving a sentence in the Curragh Military Detention Barracks. In that application it was alleged in short that the Applicant was being subjected to systematic assaults and ill-treatment and since if these allegations were true they would affect the legality of his detention, I made an order directing the production by the Respondent of the Applicant before the Court. That order was complied with and I then obtained from the Attorney General an undertaking to discharge the costs of legal representation on behalf of the Applicant, assigned to him Solicitor and Counsel, and directed an oral hearing of the application.

3 Although at an earlier stage, a challenge was made to the validity of the order of the Minister for Justice transferring the Applicant from Mountjoy Prison to the Military Detention Barracks, this was unsuccessful and no challenge was at any stage made to the validity of the conviction of the Applicant or the legality or validity of the warrants under which he is held.

4 Upon the production of the Applicant before me, I also directed that after consultation with Solicitor and Counselassigned to him that he should file an affidavit setting out in some detail the allegations upon which his application was grounded. He did so and in addition to allegations of assault and ill-treatment made allegations of what he described as provocative behaviour and harassment on the part of the prison authorities and in addition made a complaint that there were not adequate educational facilities for him in theprison.

5 When the matter came on for hearing before me Counsel on behalf of the Applicant also sought to prove and enquire into a number of alleged breaches by the prison authorities of the regulations for the Military Detention Barracks which are the Prisons Act 1972(Military Custody) Regulations 1972. Having regard to the fact that this was an enquiry into the legality of the detention of the Applicant and was a discharge by me of the duty expressly imposed upon me by Article 40 (4) (2) of the Constitution I allowed all these matters to be investigated notwithstanding the absence of any notice of them or of any details forwarded to the Respondents prior to the oral hearing.

Allegations of Assault and ill-treatment

6 I will deal first with the substantial allegations of assaultand ill-treatment out of which this application originated.

7 The major allegations made by the Applicant were that on the 6th of March 198O he having as part of a protest in which some 16 other prisoners joined, removed all the articles of furniture and other goods from his cell and left them out in the compound in front of the cell door, that he was assaulted by Military Policemen armed with batons in riot gear at the direct order of and in the presence of the Governor of the Prison. Secondly, he alleged that on an occasion which occurred on the 19th of March 1980 he was told by the Governor to stand up and when he refused to do so was beaten up in the presence of the Governor by Military Policemen. Thirdly, he alleged that on the 21st of March 1980 a number of Military Policemen entered his cell with a hose and having physically assaulted him then further assaulted and injured him with the hose. He asserted in evidence that subsequent to that he was left in the cell for approximately 11 hours with a considerable quantity of water in it and in clothes which were soaked.

8 On this issue, I heard the evidence of the Applicant and of a number of other prisoners who are detained in the MilitaryDetention Barracks at the same time and I also heard the evidence of the Governor, two medical officers from the Army Medical Service attached to the prison and a number of the Military Policemen who are the Prison Officers concerned with these incidents. I am satisfied that none of these assaults or alleged acts of ill-treatment occurred.

9 The facts as I find them to be on the evidence were as follows.

10 On the 6th of March 1980 a number of prisoners obviously acting in concert at the time immediately before they would be locked up for the night, namely shortly before 8 o'clock, removed the entire contents of their cells outside the cell door and left them on the compound outside. This was clearly done in order to disrupt the discipline and management of the prison and in an attempt to prevent the carrying out of spot searches on the prisoners and the contents of their cells. It was alleged on behalf of the Applicant and by the other witnesses on his behalf that these searches which took place at various times including after lock-up in the evening were too frequent and at unreasonable times when prisoners were asleep and that theirpurpose and intention was a harassment of the prisoners only and that they were not a necessary part of the security of the prison.

11 I have had evidence which I accept from the Governor of the prison that in the course of these searches over time on a number of occasions tools and articles obviously associated with attempted escape such as hacksaws have been found and that on a recent search not only were a number of hacksaws found but also uniforms made so as to permit an escape in which prisoners could not be identified.

12 Upon this conduct being reported to the Governor he immediately attended at the prison and directed the Company Sergeant Major who is the Senior non-Commissioned Officer on the prison staff individually to order each prisoner to bring back the contents of his cell into his cell and upon failure or refusal to carry that out he directed other non-commissioned officers to place the objects back in the cell. There was, during the time when this process was carried out, I am satisfied, in the compound but away from any of the cell doors and kept as a reserve forceonly a number of military policemen in riot gear who were down near the gate of the compound. I am further satisfied that none of the military policemen carrying out the task of returning the property into the cells was armed in any way or carried any baton. From the evidence I am satisfied that what occurred when the Company Sergeant Major and the other non-commissioned officers entered Anthony Cahill's cell, each cell being dealt with separately, was that he abusively refused to bring back the property and immediately struck a blow, though not indeed a damaging or strong blow at the Company Sergeant Major. He was then restrained by the Sergeant Major and one other noncommissioned officer by holding his arms and notwithstanding that attempted to prevent by kicking the bringing back of the articles into his cell. The articles were in fact brought back, he was then released and the cell was locked. I am quite satisfied that no other incident occurred and that he was not on that occasion assaulted or beaten in any way, other than being restrained in a fashion which in my view was entirely justifiable.

13 Some of the prisoners who had placed the articles outsidethe cell returned them when ordered to do so, others had them returned by the prison staff.

14 The Governor, I am satisfied after that process had been carried out, decided and in the events it would seem to me wisely decided that it was probable that the prisoners who were clearly engaging in a concerted protest and planned action of disobedience would make complaints of assault. With that in mind he directed the Medical Officer attached to the prison, Captain Baines, to carry out a medical examination of any prisoner who had resisted the bringing back of the goods or articles into his cell. Anthony Cahill upon the Medical Officer attending in his cell refused abusively again to permit himself to be medically examined. In my view this was a significant part of the evidence. When pressed in the witness box as to why he so refused having regard to his allegation that he had been seriously beaten a very short time before, he stated that his reason was that the Medical Officer who was seeking to examine him had taken part in, been present at and directed the beating which he received. On the evidence I have absolutely no doubt that not only did the Medical Officer concerned nottake part in any assault or be present at any assault on Anthony Cahill but that he was not even in the Military Detention Barracks at the time when the goods were returned to Anthony Cahill's cell. I must conclude from this evidence as a matter of probable inference that Cahill had already decided to build the incident which was part of his concerted protest into a complaint of assault and was aware that if he submitted himself to medical examination it would make it extremely difficult for him to carry conviction to any court that he had been assaulted.

15 Subsequent to this incident the Applicant refused to work and under the prison rules therefore lost, during the period while he refused to work, privileges. In order to implement that punishment which was a...