Cash v Governor of Wheatfield Prison
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 759 |
| Docket Number | [2013 No. 663 JR] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 19 December 2017 |
[2017] IEHC 759
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Murphy Deirdre J.
[2013 No. 663 JR]
Crime & Sentencing - R. 102 of the Prison Rules 2007 - Refusal to provide medical services in prison - Lack of evidence - Insufficient communication
Facts: Following the grant of leave to the applicant on limited ground to seek a declaration that the failure of the respondent to provide appropriate medical treatment to the applicant was contrary to r. 102 of the Prison Rules 2007, the present application came for hearing. The applicant alleged that the type of treatment rendered to him for his injuries was insufficient and presented letters written by his solicitor to the respondent for seeking details of the applicant's treatment. The respondent argued that the applicant was given appropriate medical treatment and he was never denied that facility.
Ms. Justice Murphy Deirdre refused the applicant's application. The Court held that there was full compliance with r. 102 of the Prison Rules 2007. The Court noted that the Governor had passed the information received from the applicant's solicitor to the medical team pursuant to r. 102 (1) of the 2007 Rules to assess the applicant's condition accordingly. The Court, however, held that the said information did not contain the details of the alleged missed hospital appointments. The Court found that the prison medical team had engaged the applicant extensively with the prison medical services and the applicant did not seek medical help while he was in pain for two months, which pointed to the fact that he did not need any medical assistance at that time.
This is an application for judicial review in which the applicant seeks a declaration that the failure of the respondent to provide appropriate medical treatment to him is contrary to Rule 102 of the Prison Rules 2007.
On 2nd September, 2013, the applicant brought an ex parte application for leave to apply for judicial review before White J. seeking orders of mandamus compelling the respondent to provide to the applicant the level of medical treatment envisaged in Rule 33 of the Prison Rules 2007, together with an order of mandamus compelling the respondent to respond to queries made on behalf of the applicant by his solicitor regarding the applicant's health and welfare. In addition, various declaratory reliefs were sought. The relevant part of Rule 33 of the Prison Rules 2007 provides:-
'Entitlement to Health Services
(1) Each prisoner shall be entitled, while in prison, to the provision of healthcare of a diagnostic, preventative, curative and rehabilitative nature (in these Rules referred to as 'primary healthcare') that is, at least, of the same or a similar standard as that available to persons outside of prison who are holders of a medical card.'
White J. ordered that the application for leave be made on notice to the respondent.
The matter next came before the court on 6th September, 2013 on notice to the respondent and time was given for the respondent to file an affidavit in answer to the plaintiff's application for leave to seek judicial review. A lengthy affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent from a doctor on the respondent's medical team which set out in detail the medical team's interactions with the applicant between March and August, 2013. The evidence of the doctor was supported by documentary exhibits.
The matter came before Ryan J. on 25th September, 2013. Leave was not granted in respect of any alleged failure to comply with Rule 33 of the Prison Rules 2007. Ryan J. did however grant leave to seek a declaration that the failure of the respondent to provide appropriate medical treatment to the applicant was contrary to Rule 102 of the Prison Rules 2007.
Following the making of that order, a motion was brought to amend the original application to reflect the terms of the order made by Ryan J. An amended statement of grounds was filed on 28th January, 2014 and a statement of opposition was filed on 3rd March, 2014.
Compliance with Rule 102 is therefore the matter at issue on this application. Rule 102 provides as follows:-
'Information about prisoner requiring medical attention
(1) The Governor shall -
(a) upon being informed that a prisoner requests or is in need of medical attention, or
(b) upon forming the view that a prisoner -
(i) requires medical attention, or
(ii) requires, on medical grounds, special care, or to be kept under observation,
inform the prison doctor, nurse officer or other member of the prison healthcare staff thereof, and shall keep a record of the prisoner's name, the nature of the information received, the name of the person who has been informed and the time when this was done.
(2) The prison doctor, nurse officer or other member of the prison healthcare staff shall, as soon as practicable, assess a prisoner in respect of whom information has been received under paragraph (1).
(3) In the case of a medical emergency involving a prisoner, or where a prisoner is otherwise in need of urgent medical attention, a prison doctor, nurse officer or other member of the prison healthcare staff shall, immediately upon receiving information under paragraph (1), attend the prisoner and administer or arrange for the administration of medical care to him or her.'
The applicant was born on 22nd May, 1989.
The applicant had a number of committals to prison between February and August, 2013. He was detained at both Cloverhill Prison and Wheatfield Prison during that time.
The events giving rise to the present application began on 19th February, 2013 when the applicant was involved in a high speed, head-on road traffic collision in the course of which he was ejected from his vehicle. He presented at St. Vincent's Hospital emergency department with a number of injuries including head, facial, neck and back injuries. He spent a number of days in St. Vincent's Hospital, including a period in the intensive care unit.
On 28th February, 2013, the applicant absconded from hospital. According to the prison medical records, the applicant informed medical staff that he had not attended any follow up appointments following his departure from St. Vincent's Hospital and prior to his committal to Cloverhill Prison.
The medical records show that at approximately 10 pm on 27th March, 2013 the applicant was committed to Cloverhill Prison. He was seen and treated by a nurse officer at the prison and no complaint was made by him on that occasion. Certain injuries were noted in the committal interview, particularly in relation to the applicant's musculoskeletal medical history. The applicant informed the nurse that he had two broken bones in his neck and one in his back. It was noted that the applicant was wearing a neck brace, that he had been in St. Vincent's Hospital ' three weeks ago' following a road traffic accident, and that he had left the hospital of his own accord. The applicant also informed the nurse that he had been taken to Cavan Hospital by the gardai on the day of his committal and had discharged himself against medical advice. The nurse officer requested that the applicant be put in a single cell to be reviewed by the prison doctor the following day.
On 28th March, 2013, the applicant was seen by prison doctor, Dr. Moola who noted that a neck brace was in situ, that the applicant gave conflicting dates regarding his injury but that he generally appeared well. He also noted that he would investigate what had occurred in relation to the accident. Later that same day, a nurse officer recorded that she had spoken with St. Vincent's Hospital regarding the applicant's road traffic accident and had been informed that he was ' brought to A/E following ejection from high-speed RTA on M50 on 19/2/2013'.
The applicant was released on bail on 12th April, 2013. He had been in Cloverhill Prison for 16 days.
On 29th April, 2013, the applicant was again committed to Cloverhill Prison. The applicant was seen by a nurse officer who completed his committal interview and medical notes. The applicant informed the nurse officer that he had been involved in a road traffic accident 'some six weeks ago'; that he had injured his head, neck and back; that he had self-discharged and that he had not attended for any follow up. He complained of discomfort in his ankle which was noted to be slightly swollen. It was also noted that the applicant did not know the name of his G.P. The previous references to the road traffic accident in the applicant's medical records were also noted.
On 30th April, 2013, the applicant was seen by prison doctor, Dr. Moola who noted his previous history and that he no longer had a neck brace in situ.
On the following day, 1st May, 2013, a nurse officer attended to the applicant as he had banged his head and had a small abrasion. The medical records show that when offered paracetamol, the applicant became annoyed and told the nurse to ' keep it'. The nurse also recorded that the applicant showed no signs of head injury other than the abrasion.
In May, 2013, the applicant was convicted of road traffic offences in Cloverhill Court and sentenced to eleven months imprisonment.
On 8th May, 2013, the applicant requested medical attention and was seen by the prison doctor in Cloverhill Prison. The doctor noted his complaint of ' pain in the occipital part of the head and neck' and prescribed him Keral tablets. The medical records also noted that St. Vincent's Hospital would be contacted regarding follow up appointments. At 15:35, a prison nurse recorded that she had attempted to speak to the medical records personnel at St. Vincent's Hospital, that she had left a message and...
To continue reading
Request your trial