Greene v The Director of Oberstown Children's Dentention Centre

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Noonan
• Judgment Date: 22 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 113
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 759 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 22 February 2019

[2019] IEHC 113

THE HIGH COURT

Noonan J.

[2018 No. 759 J.R.]

BETWEEN

MARTIN GREENE (SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND JULIE GREENE)

APPLICANT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF OBERSTOWN CHILDREN'S DETENTION CENTRE, THE MINISTER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

Judicial Review – Prison Law – Discovery – Applicant seeking discovery of documents in a judicial review proceedings – Whether the court should order the respondents to provide discovery of a category of documents to the applicant

Facts: The applicant was a minor detained in Oberstown Children’s Detention Centre and was seeking to judicially review the Detention Centre’s punishment regime, specifically in relation to his segregation from other children for defined periods in 2018. In this application, the applicant was seeking discovery of documents relating, inter alia, to the Goldson/Hardwick Operational Review of Oberstown Children’s Detention Campus. The applicant argued that documents relating to this report were relevant and necessary to establish that the respondents were aware that the punishment regime was not in keeping with best practice. The respondents argued that the Review was based on a visit to the campus in 2016 and that new policies had been put in place in 2017, and therefore it was not relevant to the decisions challenged in the judicial review proceedings. The respondent also submitted that the Review was confidential.

Held by Noonan J that the application should fail as the applicant had not demonstrated the necessity for the discovery. Discovery in judicial review proceedings is exceptional and will rarely be ordered. The applicant bears the onus of establishing both relevance and necessity. Noonan J held that the applicant in this case established neither, nor was there a factual dispute which could not be resolved without the benefit of discovery.

Noonan J noted that while it was unnecessary to consider the confidentiality issue in this case, a claim of confidence will not bar a discovery application, rather it is a factor to be considered when assessing the necessity of the discovery.

Relief denied.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 22nd day of February, 2019

1 This application is brought in these judicial review proceedings for discovery of one category of documents:

‘All external and internal reviews, reports, papers and/or memoranda relating and/or referring to the adequacy of the second named respondent's response to disturbances by detainees, including but not limited to the Goldson/Hardwick Operational Review of Oberstown Children Detention Campus.’

2 The applicant is a minor who is currently detained in Oberstown Children's Detention Centre pursuant to three detention orders made by the Children's Court in 2018. During three periods in 2018, the applicant was segregated from other children at Oberstown for defined periods. He alleges that this constituted an ad hoc punishment regime. As well as seeking to quash the relevant order, the applicant seeks orders of mandamus compelling the first respondent to provide reasons for his segregation, to make certain procedural provisions with regard to segregation and also various declarations seeking to vindicate the applicant's rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

3 The applicant claims that he was subjected to punishment without being accorded fair procedures such as the right to make representations and the giving of reasons for his segregation. In their statement of opposition, the respondents take no issue with the allegations of fact contained in the applicant's statement of grounds. Both parties agreed in submissions before me that there are no issues of fact in these proceedings. In essence the respondents deny that the applicant's segregation was a punishment but rather was required in the interests of his own safety and the safety of others. The respondents claim that the applicant was at all times aware of the reasons for his segregation. The respondents deny that any of the applicant's rights were...