The Minister for Justice and Equality v R.O. No.2
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Donnelly |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 312 |
| Docket Number | [2011 153 EXT.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 26 February 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 312
THE HIGH COURT
Donnelly J.
[2011 153 EXT.]
Further information – Detention conditions – Risk of inhuman and degrading treatment – High Court seeking further information as to the prison conditions in which the respondent may be held should he be surrendered to the UK and thereafter remanded in custody – Whether the response of the Northern Ireland Prison Service addressed the specific issues which the High Court had asked to be considered
Facts: Donnelly J, on 2nd November, 2017, delivered a preliminary judgment ([2017] IEHC 663) holding, on the basis of the most recent reports available to her from the National Preventive Mechanism of the UK under the Optional Protocol to the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture, and in light of the specific vulnerabilities of the respondent, that there was specific and updated information concerning the conditions of detention in Maghaberry Prison that gave rise to a concern that there was a real risk that the respondent would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment should he be surrendered to the UK. A letter was sent by the central authority on behalf of the High Court requesting “further information as to the prison conditions in which this respondent may be held should he be surrendered to the United Kingdom and thereafter remanded in custody.” The letter requested that the information “should address any specific provisions that may be made for this respondent in light of his particular vulnerabilities.” That letter was sent to the central authority in the UK. The letter did not specifically request that the information requested should be provided by the issuing judicial authority. Instead of a reply from the issuing judicial authority, the response came from the Crown Solicitor in Belfast by way of letter dated 4th December, 2017. The Crown Solicitor enclosed a letter from the head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) responding to the request made by the High Court as, in her view, he was best placed to provide the information. The respondent submitted to the High Court that the response of NIPS did not address the specific issues which the High Court had asked to be considered; those were the fact that he had a threat to his life, that he was sought for a rape offence, and that he had particular medical frailties.
Held by Donnelly J that, having considered the further information, including the reference to the November 2016 report which was not made available to the Court at the earlier stage, the new submissions regarding self-harm, and a reconsideration of the August 2017 report, it was necessary to revert to the issuing judicial authority for further information.
Donnelly J held that it was appropriate for the Court to seek further information.
Judgment approved.
On 2nd November, 2017, I delivered a preliminary judgment in this matter (see Minister for Justice and Equality v. R.O (No. 1) [2017] IEHC 663). In that judgment, I held, on the basis of the most recent reports available to me from the National Preventive Mechanism (‘NPM’) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (‘the UK’) under the Optional Protocol to the United Nation's Convention Against Torture, and in light of the specific vulnerabilities of this respondent, that there was specific and updated information concerning the conditions of detention in Maghaberry Prison that gave rise to a concern that there was a real risk that this respondent would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment should he be surrendered to the United Kingdom.
Following on from the preliminary judgment, a letter was sent by the central authority on behalf of the High Court requesting ‘further information as to the prison conditions in which this respondent may be held should he be surrendered to the United Kingdom and thereafter remanded in custody.’ The letter requested that the information ‘should address any specific provisions that may be made for this respondent in light of his particular vulnerabilities.’ That letter sent by the central authority in this state was quite properly sent to the central authority in the United Kingdom. According to the 2002 Framework Decision (Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA), a central authority may be appointed to assist the competent judicial authorities. This usually means they are responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of the EAWs, as well as other official correspondence. Unfortunately, the letter that was sent to the central authority in the UK did not specifically request that the information requested should be provided by the issuing judicial authority.
Instead of a reply from the issuing judicial authority, the response came from the Crown Solicitor in Belfast by way of letter dated 4th December, 2017. The Crown Solicitor enclosed a letter from the head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service (‘NIPS’) responding to the request made by this Court as, in her view, he was best placed to provide the information. There is nothing in the reply to indicate that the response was directed by the issuing judicial authority, or even to indicate if the issuing judicial authority had received the request for further information sent by the central authority in this jurisdiction on behalf of the High Court. This is an issue to which I will return.
Preliminary issue
The head of NIPS, Mr. Ronnie Armour, refers to the vulnerabilities of R. O as found by the High Court. Mr. Armour also refers to ‘selective aspects of two reports’ that R. O had relied upon in his submissions to the Court. These were the report of the unannounced inspection of Maghaberry Prison, dated November 2015 and the overview of initial findings published in February 2016. Mr. Armour then draws the attention of the Court to a number of comments in the ‘Report of unannounced visit to Maghaberry Prison, 5/7 September 2016, to review progress against the nine inspection recommendations made in 2015 - published in November 2016’ (‘the November 2016 report’).
The letter from Mr. Armour states as follows:
‘NIPS consider that the independent inspections and subsequent reporting are evidence indicating that it has made considerable progress in addressing the issues relied on by [R. O]. These reports clearly establish that [R. O] will not be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment should he be remanded in Maghaberry Prison.’
At the outset, the Court affirms that it does and will have regard to the principles of mutual trust and confidence which underpin the entire operation of the EAW procedure. This Court is disturbed however, by the fact that the issuing state has chosen to respond to the findings of this Court with respect to the independent inspections and subsequent reports, in a manner which seeks to undermine those findings. The issuing state was not requested to enter into a dispute or dialogue with this Court as to the Court's objective findings on the conditions in Maghaberry Prison which was based upon the reports before the Court. This Court had sought from the issuing state, information which would enable the Court to carry out its functions as an executing judicial authority. There is a distinct difference between an agency of an issuing state providing relevant information to an executing judicial authority, and that agency engaging in direct argument with conclusions reached by the executing judicial authority. It is unfortunately necessary to state that this Court will not be influenced in reaching its own determination on the issues before it based upon opinions expressed by agencies of the issuing state.
The Court must however take into account that, through oversight in the presentation of materials at the hearing of the original application, another report of the NPM based on a visit in September 2016 the November 2016 report which is referred to by NIPS in its response, had not been considered by this Court. The November 2016 report therefore did not feature in the preliminary judgment which had been sent to the issuing state. In those circumstances, the view expressed by NIPS appears to be based on the consideration of more materials than had been considered by this Court. The Court, as indicated in the Addendum to the preliminary judgment, was however in possession of a further report published in August 2017.
The contents of the response
The response of NIPS was divided into three parts under separate headings.. The first heading was “threat to life”, the second was “vulnerable prisoners” and the third was “healthcare”. Under the heading “threat to life”, NIPS stated that this respondent was requested for surrender based on allegations of murder and arson. The response went on to say they had experience of dealing with many prisoners charged with and convicted of such crimes. This does not accurately portray the offences for which the surrender of the respondent is sought. He is also sought for an alleged offence of rape and it is the nature of such an offence that brings with it certain requirements for protecting prisoners.
The response from NIPS however states, that prisoners may present as vulnerable for a variety of reasons, one of which includes the alleged offence of rape. NIPS have stated that all prisoners are assessed immediately on committal both by specialised reception officers and healthcare professionals.
Furthermore, NIPS state that should a prisoner be subjected to death threats, they will carry out their own risk assessment, seek to establish all known factors about that risk, and consequently develop...
To continue reading
Request your trial