A High Court judge is to rule on liability for what the State has agreed will be the "substantial" costs, estimated at more than €1 million, of a former prisoner's case over slopping out – the practice of prisoners emptying their in-cell latrines, usually a chamber pot.
The State has yet to indicate if it will appeal Mr Justice Michael White’s significant decision that slopping out breached former prisoner Gary Simpson’s right to privacy and to dignity. Some 1,200 cases over slopping out are in the pipeline.
In his judgment last month, Mr Justice White rejected a key claim by Mr Simpson slopping out also breached his right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The judge also refused to award damages for the breach of privacy rights after finding some of Mr Simpson’s evidence concerning his treatment was either untruthful or grossly exaggerated.
When the case returned before the judge on Friday, he made a formal declaration, consequential on his judgment, that slopping out breached Mr Simpson’s constitutional right to privacy and dignity.
Paul O’Higgins SC, for Mr Simpson, sought a declaration in those terms but Remy Farrell SC, for the State, argued a declaration of a breach of the right would adequately reflect the court’s findings in the case.
‘Substantial’ costs
The judge said he would make the declaration as sought by Mr O’Higgins.
He also directed the sides to provide submissions on costs issues by October 27th. After that, he will fix a hearing date to decide liability for what both sides agreed will be “substantial” costs of the case, which ran for more than 30 days.
Because Mr Justice White had stressed in his judgment his decision was made in the particular circumstances of Mr Simpson’s imprisonment over eight months in 2013 – being under protection, doubled up in a single cell and 23 hour lock-up – the judgment’s implications for other cases remains unclear.
Official figures for last July showed 415 prisoners were on a restricted regime, most of whom had sought protection at their own request. Some 305 of that number were locked up for at least 21 hours daily.
Legal sources believe a considerable number of the cases have a reasonable prospect of securing damages because of their particular circumstances.
Sympathetic hearing
Cases of prisoners without previous convictions who were subject to slopping out after being jailed for a “once-off” offence may get a sympathetic hearing, sources suggested. A case where a prisoner allegedly had a bucket of faeces dumped on his head but was unable to get access to a shower for 24 hours is among those being pursued.
Following the Simpson judgment, a number of law firms pursuing hundreds of slopping out cases urged the State to actively consider an individual case assessment scheme which could lead to redress for some prisoners.
