Hunger-striking prisoner’s choice to be respected
Ms Justice Marie Baker said that while death may not be the prisoner’s intended choice, it would be the indirect result of that choice “which if freely made and fully informed must be respected”.
The prisoner, who was on hunger strike for 50 days, or the prison where he is being held, cannot be identified by order of the court. The man had been protesting over the conditions of his detention and during the three-day hearing before Judge Baker, agreed to suspend his hunger-strike action.
During the proceedings, the prisoner was able to attend court and spoke with the judge in private. While he was able to walk without assistance he appeared frail and gaunt.
Judge Baker said the prisoner’s decision to accept a medical intervention and receive nutrients intravenously until the conditions in which he is held is dealt with at a full High Court hearing was “a welcome development”. In a case which raised legal issues concerning a person’s capacity to make a decision that could eventually lead to death, Judge Baker was told that the man had been at serious risk of slipping into a coma and dying.
The court heard that the prisoner stopped eating food in early February but continued to take fluids.
Judge Baker gave a detailed judgment on the legal issues raised in the action.
The State, represented by Conor Power SC had asked the High Court to make several declarations, including that the man, who had a troubled upbringing and has been in solitary confinement for the last three years at his own request and for his protection, has the capacity to decide to refuse food.
The man’s lawyers urged the judge not to make any decision about his capacity until all relevant and detailed evidence had been put before the court. This was a case where there was “no room for error”, Michael Lynn SC for the man said.
Judge Baker said hunger strikes had a long history in Ireland and reference to them could be found in early Irish law. They were a particularly Irish form of protest and the case before her had been brought by a prisoner whose complaints were purely personal, relating to the conditions of his detention.
She said the case concerned the question of whether the prisoner’s choice to express his protest was one made in the full knowledge of the consequences for him and if his expressed wishes should be respected.
Having heard “clearly expressed and articulate evidence from the prisoner” the judge said she was of the view he had the capacity to make the decision he had made to refuse food and that his decision had been made by him in the full understanding of its consequences.
“He had freely made his choice to go on and continue his hunger strike,” Judge Baker said.
She said the prisoner’s decision-making capacity had not been impaired by any frailty arising from his current living conditions or his personality traits. While death may not be his intended choice it would be the indirect result of that choice.
“If the choice is freely made and fully informed it is a choice that must be respected,” Judge Baker said.
She said she was satisfied the State could properly respect the personal autonomy and right of self-determination of the prisoner by giving effect to his stated wish and direction not to be treated.
Judge Baker said she noted the evidence of two consultant psychiatrists who said the prisoner had the capacity to make the decision to refuse food and was aware of the consequences.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
