S.M v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an application for habeas corpus under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, brought by the Applicant who is remanded in custody in Cloverhill Prison pending trial for murder. The Applicant suffers from a psychotic illness with homicidal ideation and requires inpatient care in the Central Mental Hospital (CMH), the only facility capable of providing the necessary specialist therapeutic security. Due to resource constraints, no bed is currently available at the CMH. The Applicant contends that his detention is unlawful due to the failure to provide appropriate medical treatment, despite valid detention orders. The procedural history includes multiple psychiatric assessments and detailed evidence regarding the Applicant’s treatment and mental health condition.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a failure to provide appropriate medical treatment during otherwise lawful detention can render that detention unlawful under Article 40.4 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the Applicant’s current detention breaches his constitutional rights to bodily integrity and medical care to such an extent as to justify an order of habeas corpus.
3. The appropriateness of the habeas corpus remedy in cases involving resource limitations affecting medical treatment.
4. Whether an order for release under Article 40.4.2 can be stayed pending further action.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant asserts that the acknowledged need for identified medical treatment which is not being met constitutes a breach of his constitutional rights.
• The lack of treatment results from resource shortages, but the breach is exceptionally grave and fundamental, warranting release.
• The Applicant contends that the failure to admit him to the CMH, the only suitable facility, renders his detention unlawful.

Governor's Arguments

• The Governor argues there is no complete failure of treatment given the care provided in Cloverhill Prison.
• Relies on compliance with Rule 33 of the Prison Rules, ensuring healthcare at least equal to that available to medical card holders.
• Notes the Applicant is receiving appropriate medication, although he sometimes refuses it.
• Maintains that the Applicant is not deprived of care he could access in the community and that release would not be in his best interests.

Notice Party's Arguments

• The Notice Party emphasizes the provision of forensic in-reach care, specialist carers, and nursing staff at Cloverhill.
• Highlights the Applicant’s placement on the vulnerable prisoners’ wing and the degree of medical supervision provided.
• Contends there is no egregious breach of constitutional or European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights.
• Points out the Applicant’s cessation of antipsychotic medication is unexplained and relevant to the assessment of treatment adequacy.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that habeas corpus is a powerful constitutional remedy designed to address unlawful detention, including cases where detention is invalidated by fundamental breaches of rights. The court emphasized that only exceptional, egregious breaches of constitutional rights can render otherwise lawful detention unlawful. The Applicant’s detention was challenged on the basis of inadequate medical treatment due to lack of available beds at the CMH, a resource issue.

The court considered established case law which requires a complete failure to provide appropriate treatment or conditions to invalidate detention. The evidence showed the Applicant was receiving ongoing psychiatric care in Cloverhill Prison, including medication (though taken inconsistently by the Applicant), twice daily nursing visits, and specialist forensic in-reach services. The Applicant’s refusal to consistently take medication was noted, although no evidence was presented regarding his capacity to make that decision.

The court found that the Applicant’s current treatment, while not ideal, was not a complete failure and that his condition was not caused or actively worsened by the detention. Moreover, the court noted that release into the community would likely result in reduced access to treatment and poorer care, as the Applicant would be less likely to engage with services and could not access the CMH from the community due to risk factors. The court also recognized the absence of any deliberate or intentional breach by the Governor and the ongoing weekly triage process at the CMH.

Regarding procedural aspects, the court observed that Article 40.4 applications lack detailed procedural rules and are intended to address clear and overwhelming illegality. The court declined to exclude resource-related claims from habeas corpus relief but acknowledged such claims present difficulties.

On the issue of staying any order for release, the court reviewed jurisprudence firmly rejecting the power to stay release orders under Article 40.4.2, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for immediate release when detention is unlawful. The court noted that any delay in release must be very limited and that open-ended stays would be inappropriate, particularly given the pressures on CMH resources and the need to maintain fair triage.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for habeas corpus, holding that the Applicant’s detention, despite the lack of immediate availability of a bed in the CMH, was not unlawful. The breach of the Applicant’s rights to bodily integrity and medical care was not sufficiently egregious, exceptional, or fundamental to vitiate the valid detention order.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant remains detained in Cloverhill Prison pending trial. The ruling does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming the high threshold for habeas corpus relief in cases involving alleged inadequate medical treatment due to resource limitations. The court also confirmed the constitutional principle that orders for release under Article 40.4.2 are not subject to stays, reinforcing the immediacy of the remedy where applicable.