PMcD v The Governor of X Prison (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, serving a 12-year sentence in X Prison under voluntary solitary confinement, began a hunger strike in February 2015 after two administrative changes: (1) loss of a preferred exercise yard and (2) a new method of meal delivery that involved other prisoners. At the Governor’s suggestion the Appellant filed two written complaints under the 2014 Irish Prison Service Prisoner Complaints Policy. The complaints were not categorised until 25 February 2015 and were not answered until 27 March 2015. Meanwhile the Governor commenced separate “capacity proceedings” seeking High Court guidance on whether the hunger-striking prisoner could refuse food; that court held the prisoner competent to make that autonomous decision.

On 8 April 2015 the Appellant issued plenary summons alleging (a) negligence by the Governor in handling the complaints and (b) breaches of constitutional and European Convention rights. Judge Baker in the High Court dismissed most claims but awarded €5,000 damages for negligence and declared that the Governor had breached the Complaints Policy. The Governor successfully appealed; the Court of Appeal (Judge Noonan delivering) set aside both the damages and the declaration, holding that the policy was merely “aspirational” and incapable of giving rise to a private law duty of care.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on two issues: (1) negligence/duty of care and (2) entitlement to declaratory relief. While the appeal was pending, the Appellant died. The present judgment (majority, Judge MacMenamin) upholds the Court of Appeal on negligence but reinstates a modified declaration regarding the inadequacy of the complaints system.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 2014 Irish Prison Service Complaints Policy created a relationship of proximity and a duty of care in negligence between the Governor and the Appellant, such that delay in processing complaints could ground damages.
2. Whether, notwithstanding the absence of liability in negligence, the Court should grant a declaration that the prison complaints policy failed to meet the legal requirement for an effective complaints system.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The Court of Appeal misunderstood the High Court’s factual findings from a 15-day trial; the negligence claim was not a mere breach of policy but a failure to protect a psychologically vulnerable prisoner whose hunger strike was prolonged by the defective complaints process.
• The policy was not “aspirational” but an operational tool endorsed by prison management and aligned with international standards; breach of it should found liability.
• Causation was established: the six-week delay materially contributed to prolongation of the hunger strike and consequent physical and psychological harm.
• Authorities on duty of care and causation (including Reeves v Commissioner of Police, Butchart v Home Office, and UCC v ESB) supported the imposition of liability in custodial settings.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The Complaints Policy lacked statutory force and could not create a private law duty; Glencar establishes that aspirational policies do not generate actionable duties of care.
• Even prompt replies would not have satisfied the prisoner’s substantive demands; therefore causation was absent.
• The High Court’s award was effectively nominal damages in negligence, a tort not actionable per se; such an award was impermissible.
• The High Court’s declaration was unfounded because no underlying legal duty arose and, in any event, the claims were now moot.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

Negligence Claim: The Court accepted that the complaints policy was important but found it legally non-binding. Applying the Glencar tests:

• Causation: Evidence showed the real cause of the hunger strike was the Governor’s refusal to reverse the administrative changes, not delay in answering complaints; prompt replies would have yielded the same outcome.
• Proximity and Duty of Care: An aspirational internal policy, lacking statutory force, did not create a relationship obliging the Governor to compensate for delay. Imposing such a duty could deter prisons from adopting voluntary policies.
• Foreseeable Injury: The Appellant produced no concrete medical evidence of additional injury attributable to delay.
• Damages: Negligence is not actionable per se; the €5,000 awarded below was effectively nominal and therefore unsustainable.

Declaratory Relief: Although damages failed, the Court held it has a broad, discretionary jurisdiction to grant declarations where useful. The High Court’s evidence showed the complaints system was “not functional,” corroborated by the Inspector of Prisons. An effective system is mandated by constitutional communicative rights and international standards (e.g., Mandela Rules, European Prison Rules). Granting a declaration would highlight systemic failure without unfairly castigating the Governor personally.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal on negligence is DISMISSED; the Court of Appeal’s setting aside of damages is affirmed. However, the appeal succeeds in part: the Supreme Court issues a declaration that the Irish Prison Service Complaints Policy, as administered in 2015, did not provide an effective complaints system for the Appellant.

Implications: The judgment clarifies that internal, non-statutory policies alone do not create actionable duties of care in negligence, thereby limiting potential liability of prison authorities. Simultaneously, the declaratory relief signals to the State the legal necessity of a robust, timely and independent prisoner complaints mechanism, reinforcing domestic and international standards without creating new monetary precedent.