Former inmate subject to 'slop out' regime in prison loses court challenge over compensation

Applicant had been denied compensation because his application had exceeded the six-year period allowed under settlement scheme

The applicant was detained in Cork Prison for periods between March 2013 and April 2014 and had submitted he had no in-cell sanitation and was required to urinate and defecate in a bucket in his cell, sometimes in the presence of other prisoners. Picture: Dan Linehan

A man who claimed he was subjected to degrading and inhumane conditions in prison because he had to urinate and defecate in a bucket sometimes in front of other inmates and then "slop out", has lost a court challenge seeking to reverse a decision denying him any compensation due to time constraints.

Applicant John O’Brien, aged 31, claimed he had been subject to a practice that violated his human rights and took the action against the governor of Cork Prison, the Irish Prison Service, the minister for justice and equality, Ireland, and the attorney general.

O’Brien, with an address listed on court papers as c/o Cork Prison, Rathmore Road, Cork, challenged the decision to deny him access to a compensation scheme due to his application being statute-barred.

The applicant was detained in Cork for periods between March 2013 and April 2014 and submitted he had no in-cell sanitation and was required to urinate and defecate in a bucket in his cell, sometimes in the presence of other prisoners.

He claimed he then had to “slop out” the contents of the bucket in the morning when his cell door was opened.

The regime was a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits degrading or inhumane conditions in prison and was also unconstitutional in Irish law, he submitted.

In February 2020, the State Claims Agency established a settlement scheme to enable prisoners who had been subjected to a “slopping out” regime to claim compensation.

The applicant applied for compensation under the scheme in November 2020 and, more formally, in March 2021.

However, in May 2021, solicitors for the respondents rejected the application as it was statute-barred as it exceeded the six-year period allowed at Section 11 of the Statute of Limitations, 1957.

The applicant sought a ruling to quash that decision and claim damages under his right to an “effective remedy”.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins said the applicant emphasised the “historic” nature of the wrong, and contended the effect of applying a rigid limitation to a scheme designed to atone for historic wrongs was that prisoners would be "shut out from claiming compensation, even in cases of an admitted wrong".

Mr Justice O’Higgins said it was claimed the limitation “undermines, in a serious way, the core purpose of the scheme”.

It had been claimed the State could have not applied any limitation at all or could have included a grace period.

Mr Justice O’Higgins said the applicant needed "to go further" than demonstrating the scheme could have been differently devised.

“The mere availability of different options or models is not sufficient to entitle the applicant to the relief that he seeks,” said the judge.

“Whilst these options may well have been open, I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the inclusion of a limitation rule, per se, is contrary to the applicant’s rights,” said the judge.

Mr Justice O’Higgins found the applicant "had not demonstrated that the limitation period of the scheme must, as a matter of principle, be ignored, or a grace period allowed".

Mr Justice O’Higgins said the applicant had not adduced evidence to show his exclusion from the scheme was either oppressive or unfair in his personal circumstances, nor had he demonstrated that Irish law during the relevant period failed to provide an "effective remedy".

He then refused the application and ruled for the respondents, which were represented by Remy Farrell SC and Conor Duff BL.