Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison serving a sentence commencing 17th October 2012. On 10th October 2013, the Applicant committed two serious breaches of prison discipline, resulting in a 56-day sanction under rule 62 of the Prison Rules 2007, which included removal from the general population to the Challenging Behaviour Unit (CBU). While in the CBU, on 7th November 2013, the Applicant committed a further breach and received an additional 28-day loss of privileges sanction, due to commence on 8th December 2013.
On 8th November 2013, the Applicant's solicitor complained that the Applicant was not receiving one hour of open air exercise daily as required by rule 32(1) of the Prison Rules 2007. The exercise area provided was described as a cage-like structure not open to the sky. After no initial response, correspondence ensued, and an application for leave to seek judicial review was filed on 14th November 2013, seeking mandamus compelling compliance with rule 32(1) and a declaration that the exercise offered did not comply with that rule.
Leave was granted on 22nd November 2013, with the Court recognizing the Applicant's detention circumstances and the nature of the exercise area. The second respondent was discharged from the proceedings on the same date, and the matter was set for hearing. The Applicant was released from the CBU on 6th December 2013, and the second period of punishment was not enforced.
The first respondent filed a statement of opposition on 14th July 2014, arguing mootness and substantive compliance with the Prison Rules, relying on the discretion afforded by rule 75 of the Prison Rules 2007.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Applicant was entitled to one hour of exercise in the open air daily pursuant to rule 32(1) of the Prison Rules 2007.
- Whether the exercise area provided to the Applicant in the Challenging Behaviour Unit complied with the requirement of being "in the open air" under rule 32(1).
- Whether the application was moot given the Applicant's return to the general prison population.
- Whether the discretion afforded to the Governor under rule 75(3) extends to defining what constitutes "open air" exercise within the prison context.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Applicant was not provided with one hour of exercise in the open air daily as required by rule 32(1).
- The exercise area offered was a cage-like enclosed structure, not open to the sky, and thus did not satisfy the rule's requirements.
- This failure infringed the Applicant’s constitutional right to health and rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The application was not moot because the Applicant remained in custody and could be returned to the Challenging Behaviour Unit, thus potentially subjected again to the same regime.
Respondents' Arguments
- The application was moot as the Applicant was no longer detained in the Challenging Behaviour Unit and the regime complained of was no longer applicable to him.
- The exercise yard, although enclosed and roofed, complied with rule 32(1) given the security needs and nature of the prisoners detained in the CBU (high risk or misbehaving inmates).
- The Governor has broad discretion under rule 75(3) to maintain a regime ensuring good order, secure custody, and well-being of prisoners, including discretion to define appropriate exercise facilities.
- European Court of Human Rights case law supports a contextual and relative interpretation of "open air" in prison settings, including the provision of shelter in exercise yards.
- The roofed exercise yard was necessary to prevent drug smuggling and maintain security, and was thus appropriate for its purpose.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Borowski v. Canada [1989] 1 SCR 342 |
Definition and application of mootness and live controversy in judicial review. |
The Court applied the principle that a live controversy must exist at the time of hearing and found the application was not moot given the Applicant’s potential return to the CBU. |
| Goold v. Collins [2004] 7 JIC 1201 |
Exception to mootness: "capable of repetition, yet evading review." |
The Court relied on this test to conclude that the Applicant could be subjected again to the same regime, supporting non-mootness. |
| O’Brien v PIAB [2007] 1 IR 328 |
Exceptions to mootness rule. |
The Court noted but did not need to apply this exception as the application was not moot. |
| Okunade v. The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2013] 1 ILRM |
Exception to mootness rule. |
Referenced as a relevant authority on mootness exceptions but not applied. |
| Ananyev and Others v. Russia (CPT Report) |
Standards for outdoor exercise facilities for prisoners. |
The Court noted the CPT's recommendation for shelter in outdoor exercise areas but distinguished it from full enclosure. |
| Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00 (2008) |
Physical space and openness of exercise yards. |
Referenced to illustrate the importance of open sky access and adequate space. |
| Mandi and Jovi v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10 (2011) |
Outdoor exercise and prison overcrowding conditions. |
Used to show that shelter is desirable but full enclosure negates the concept of open air exercise. |
| Derek Devoy v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [2009] IEHC 288 |
Discretion of prison governors and respect for prisoners' constitutional rights. |
Confirmed wide discretion of Governors but emphasized the need to respect constitutional rights and Prison Rules. |
| State (Richardson) v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [1980] ILRM 82 |
Balancing prison security and prisoners' constitutional rights. |
Supported the principle that prison authorities require discretion but must reconcile this with constitutional rights. |
| Meadows v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 |
Deference to government decisions on matters properly theirs to decide. |
Referenced regarding deference to executive decisions, though the Court found the issue of defining "open air" exercise was not solely a matter for the Governor. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the exercise area provided to the Applicant in the CBU. Despite the Respondent’s description and photographs, the Court found that the area was fully enclosed with a solid brick wall on one side, sheet metal walls on three sides, and a steel roof covering the entire area. Only a small portion of the upper walls consisted of steel mesh admitting light and air, positioned well above head height. The Court held that this did not meet the ordinary and natural meaning of "open air," which requires the ability to see the sky and feel the elements such as sun or rain.
Regarding mootness, the Court applied established tests from Canadian and American jurisprudence, concluding that the application was not moot because the Applicant remained in custody and could be returned to the CBU, thus potentially subjected again to the same exercise regime.
Substantively, the Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that "open air" is a relative concept within the prison context subject to gubernatorial discretion. The Court distinguished between the mandatory nature of open air exercise under rule 32(1) and the discretionary provision for indoor exercise under rule 32(2). It concluded that the Governor’s discretion does not extend to redefining "open air" to include fully enclosed areas.
The Court acknowledged the security concerns cited by the Respondent but held that it is not beyond possibility to provide open air exercise facilities that meet security requirements. The Court emphasized that the mandatory entitlement to open air exercise must be given effect according to the Prison Rules and ordinary meaning of the term.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that the exercise area attached to the Challenging Behaviour Unit is not "in the open air" as required by rule 32(1) of the Prison Rules 2007.
The Court determined that the Applicant’s entitlement to one hour of exercise in the open air daily was not met by the enclosed exercise yard provided. The Court also held that the application was not moot, allowing the matter to proceed. The decision clarifies that the Governor’s discretion under the Prison Rules does not extend to redefining "open air" to include fully enclosed or roofed structures. The ruling directly affects the parties by requiring compliance with the clear terms of rule 32(1) but does not establish a broader new precedent beyond the interpretation of that rule and the limits of gubernatorial discretion in this context.