A FORMER IRA prisoner has lost a High Court action over alleged violation of his human rights through the continued existence of the “slopping out” regime in Portlaoise Prison.
Sean Mulligan (58), who was jailed in December 2002 for five years for IRA membership, claimed he was degraded and humiliated through having to use a five-inch deep round “potty” to defecate and urinate into in his cell.
He sought declarations and damages for alleged breaches of his rights to privacy and not to be subjected to degrading treatment under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Dismissing the action yesterday, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the evidence did not establish the conditions of Mr Mulligan’s detention, while clearly demeaning, were such as to seriously endanger his life or health.
In some, but not all aspects, the practices adopted were not dissimilar to what might have been found in institutional locations three or more decades ago, the judge said.
He was unable to find, given the lack of overcrowding or “doubling up” of cells, that the use of a potty actually violated Mr Mulligan’s privacy and human dignity rights to such a degree to give rise to a cause of action.
However, while not making a negative finding in relation to expected standards, this was not to be seen as a positive finding, all aspects of the prison regime complied with standards, the judge added.
Mr Mulligan had brought the proceedings against the governor of Portlaoise Prison, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, the Irish Prison Service and the Attorney General.
He claimed the slopping out regime – whereby the contents of the potty had to be emptied into a sluice outside the cell every day – was degrading.
Contents of the potty would frequently splash back and it also had to be kept in the cell overnight with only a small window as ventilation.
Mr Mulligan, from Carmalughogue in Louth village, also claimed the regime was particularly onerous on him because of a pre-existing susceptibility to colorectal medical complaints, including haemorrhoids.
Mr Justice MacMenamin said there was no evidence that the lack of in-cell sanitation and the consequent privations on Mr Mulligan were punitive, malicious or evil in purpose.
There was even less evidence the authorities were taking advantage of his detention to violate his constitutional rights or to subject him to inhuman or degrading treatment, he ruled.
The general regime in the prison had not been significantly criticised by Mr Mulligan and there was no evidence of degradation in the sense of humiliation, he said.
There was evidence that facilities in the prison fell below the standards to be expected but the negative aspects were outweighed by the regime as a whole and the essential ingredients of malice, demeaning or humiliating conduct were all absent, he said.
He stressed his findings must be seen against the fact the prison service recognised as far back as 1995 it was necessary to provide in-cell sanitation in Portlaoise Prison’s E-wing, where Mr Mulligan was held.
Cell ventilation was substandard and to many, including the prison visiting committee, slopping out was unacceptable in this century, the judge added.