A man who claimed he was subject to inhumane conditions in prison because he had to urinate and defecate in a bucket and then “slop out” has lost a High Court challenge seeking to reverse a decision denying him compensation.
John O’Brien (31) claimed he had been subject to a practice that violated his human rights and took the action against the Governor of Cork Prison, the Irish Prison Service, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General.
O’Brien (31), with an address listed in court papers as c/o Cork Prison, Rathmore Road, Cork, challenged the decision to deny him access to a compensation scheme due to his application being statute barred.
He was detained in Cork for periods between March 2013 and April 2014 and submitted that he had no in-cell sanitation and was required to urinate and defecate in a bucket in his cell, sometimes in the presence of other prisoners.
He claimed he then had to “slop out” the contents of the bucket in the morning when his cell door was opened.
The regime was a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits degrading or inhumane conditions in prison and was also unconstitutional in Irish law, he submitted.
In February 2020, the State Claims Agency established a settlement scheme to enable prisoners who had been subjected to a “slopping out” regime to claim compensation.
O’Brien applied for compensation under the scheme in November 2020 and, more formally, in March 2021.
However, in May 2021, solicitors for the respondents rejected the application as it was statute barred as it exceeded the six-year period allowed by section 11 of the Statute of Limitations, 1957.
O’Brien sought a ruling to quash that decision and claim damages under his right to an “effective remedy”.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins said O’Brien emphasised the “historic” nature of the wrong, and contended that the effect of applying a rigid limitation to a scheme designed to atone for historic wrongs is that prisoners would be “shut out from claiming compensation, even in cases of an admitted wrong”.
Mr Justice O’Higgins said it was claimed that the limitation “undermines, in a serious way, the core purpose of the scheme”.
It had been claimed the State could have not applied any limitation at all or could have included a grace period.
Mr Justice O’Higgins said O’Brien needed “to go further” than demonstrating that the scheme could have been devised differently.
Mr Justice O’Higgins said O’Brien had not adduced evidence to show that his exclusion from the scheme was either oppressive or unfair in his personal circumstances nor had he demonstrated that Irish law during the relevant period failed to provide an “effective remedy”.
He then refused the application and ruled for the respondents, who were represented by Remy Farrell SC and Conor Duff BL.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
