PMcD v The Governor of X Prison (Approved) [2021] IESC 65_4 (17 September 2021)

PMcD v The Governor of X Prison (Approved) [2021] IESC 65_4 (17 September 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the prison authorities did not owe a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from self-inflicted harm by hunger strike, as his actions were voluntary and autonomous. The existence of a complaints procedure or its alleged inadequacy did not establish liability in negligence. Declaratory relief was refused as there was no real legal issue warranting such an order.

Citation
[2021] IESC 65_4
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: P McD; Defendant/respondent: The Governor of the X Prison
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal and High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Prisoner Rights, Declaratory Relief, Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Tort Law Prison Law Constitutional Law Negligence Duty of Care Prisoner Rights Declaratory Relief Voluntary Assumption of Risk

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P McD

Plaintiff/appellant

The Governor of the X Prison

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal and High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prison authorities owe a duty of care to prevent self-harm by hunger strike
  2. 2 Whether a failure in the complaints procedure gives rise to liability in negligence
  3. 3 Whether declaratory relief is appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the prison authorities did not owe a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from self-inflicted harm by hunger strike, as his actions were voluntary and autonomous. The existence of a complaints procedure or its alleged inadequacy did not establish liability in negligence. Declaratory relief was refused as there was no real legal issue warranting such an order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order in favour of the plaintiff
  • No declaration granted