The first of several test cases to decide if the State is liable for damages to more than 800 prisoners over "slopping out" has opened at the High Court.
Former prisoner Gary Simpson claims his human rights were violated, he experienced feelings of humiliation, degradation and worthlessness and his mental health was affected over enduring the slopping out regime in Dublin's Mountjoy Prison.
A psychologist will testify the conditions must have affected Mr Simpson’s mental health and there will be evidence treating a person like an animal has a “brutalising” effect, James Devlin SC said.
Imposing this regime on a prisoner like Mr Simpson while he sought protection from other prisoners was regarded as particularly detrimental, he added.
The slopping out regime was condemned in 1993 by the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture which urged it be ended as a matter of the highest priority, counsel said.
While the State in 1995 said it accepted fully the concerns of the CPT and would put in place a programme of in-cell sanitation, it said in 2008 that was not feasible but in 2010 altered that position and began a programme of prison refurbishment with a goal of single cell occupancy and in cell sanitation, the court was told.
Mr Devlin, with Micheál P O’Higgins SC, was opening Mr Simpson’s action over conditions experienced while he was sharing a cell, designated as a single cell, with another prisoner in D1 wing in Mountjoy over some eight months in 2013.
Vulnerable
Mr Simpson was in Mountjoy after being sentenced to six years, with three suspended, for robbery offences. He sought transfer to D1 wing for his own protection because he felt vulnerable to attack from other prisoners.
His is the first of a number of test cases against the State to decide if it has any liability for damages over the regime.
The State denies any liability and the action, before Mr Justice Michael White, is expected to run for at least five weeks and will hear evidence from Mr Simpson and various experts on his behalf.
The State has 35 witnesses but does not expect to call all of those.
Outlining the case, Mr Devlin said his client was generally subject to 23 hour lock up in D1 but sometimes only got out for less than an hour or was locked up for longer before being let out.
There was no in cell sanitation and no running water and basins and other receptacles were provided for the prisoners to urinate and defecate into and for washing, he said.
Mr Simpson had particular difficulty defecating into such receptacles and would generally do so into a newspaper which he would wrap up in a plastic bag. Because there was no proper in cell facility for washing hands after urinating or defecating, that created considerable risk of infection, counsel said.
Filthy walls
Urine and faeces would have to be disposed of by prisoners in the slopping out area which was often in bad condition with filthy walls and urine and razor blades on the floor, counsel said. Some prisoners would also urinate in the sinks in that area designated for washing.
Prisoners on D1 wing also had to eat their meals in the cell which was akin to eating in “a not very nice toilet”.
Mr Simpson, who lost his mother at an early age, developed problems with alcohol and became homeless at 16, felt low self esteem as a result of all of this and particularly about having to defecate before his cell mate, to witness the latter doing the same and putting up with the “general disgustingness” of all of this.
He experienced feelings of anger, humiliation and a “sense of worthlessness”.
Subjecting Mr Simpson to such conditions breached his rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights, including to dignity, private life and to not be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment. His mental health was also affected.
The slopping out regime had been criticised in a range of reports, including by the Inspector of Prisons here and the CPT. A report by the Thornton Hall Review Group had also addressed the impact of such conditions on prospects of rehabilitation.
