PMcD v The Governor of X Prison (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a prisoner in Prison X, initiated a hunger strike after protracted disputes with prison authorities. The Respondent, the Governor of the prison, commenced High Court proceedings seeking clarity on the authorities’ obligations during the hunger strike. In separate “capacity proceedings” the High Court held that the Appellant was competent to refuse nutrition and that the authorities were not obliged to force-feed him.

Parallel negligence proceedings were then brought by the Appellant. He claimed that maladministration of the Irish Prison Service Complaints Policy (introduced June 2014) lengthened his hunger strike and caused loss. The High Court found a duty of care, awarded €5,000 in damages and made a declaration that the Governor had breached the policy. The Court of Appeal reversed both the finding of liability and the declaration. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on the basis of general public importance.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the High Court’s finding that the Respondent owed the Appellant a private-law duty of care in administering the prison complaints policy.
2. If the Court of Appeal was correct, whether the Supreme Court should nevertheless grant a declaration concerning the adequacy of the complaints system.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The 2014 Irish Prison Complaints Policy created a private-law duty of care owed by the Respondent to prisoners.
• Breach of that duty prolonged the hunger strike, causing damage for which the Appellant was entitled to compensation.
• Even if damages were unavailable, a declaration should issue acknowledging systemic failings in the complaints process.

Respondent's Arguments

• Adopting an internal policy does not of itself create a private-law duty of care to individual prisoners.
• The Appellant’s autonomous decision to embark on, and continue, a hunger strike broke any chain of causation.
• No basis existed for the declaratory relief sought; the proposed declaration was neither pleaded nor supported by a viable cause of action.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Delivering the principal judgment, Judge O’Donnell agreed with Judges MacMenamin and Charleton that no private-law duty of care arose from the complaints policy. The analysis proceeded in three stages:

1. Proximity and general duty: While the prison–prisoner relationship undoubtedly gives rise to duties to avoid physical harm, adopting an internal policy does not extend those duties to the manner in which complaints are processed.
2. Autonomy and causation: The Appellant’s hunger strike was a voluntary, autonomous act. It is “extremely unusual” for a party to owe a duty to protect a competent person from the consequences of their own decisions. Even if a duty existed, causation was not established; the strike continued despite responses received.
3. Declaratory relief: Because the negligence claim failed, the High Court declaration fell. A new declaration, as proposed by Judge MacMenamin, was refused: it had never been sought, lacked an evidential basis, involved unargued constitutional and ECHR issues, and would yield no tangible benefit to the Appellant.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision: no duty of care was owed and no declaration would be granted.

Implications: The judgment confirms that (1) internal prison policies do not automatically generate private-law duties of care; (2) courts will be slow to impose liability for harm that flows from a competent prisoner’s autonomous protest; and (3) declaratory relief must be tied to a pleaded cause of action and a demonstrated legal interest. No new precedent was created, but existing limits on negligence and declaratory jurisdiction were reaffirmed.