Report on Prisons in Ireland, CPT, 2007

Report on Prisons in Ireland, CPT, 2007

• Feb. 15, 2016 • Locations: Ireland • Topics: International

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

CPT/Inf (2007) 40

Report to the Government of Ireland
on the visit to Ireland
carried out by the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
from 2 to 13 October 2006

The Government of Ireland has requested the publication of this report
and of its response. The Government's response is set out in document
CPT/Inf (2007) 41.

Strasbourg, 10 October 2007

-3 -

CONTENTS

Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT’s report ........................................................................... 5
I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 7

Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ............................................................. 7

Establishments visited .............................................................................................................. 8

Consultations held by the delegation ...................................................................................... 9

Cooperation between the CPT and the Irish authorities ...................................................... 9

Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention ...................... 10

II.

FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED.............................. 11

Law enforcement agencies ..................................................................................................... 11

Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................ 11

Ill-treatment..................................................................................................................... 13

Conditions of detention ................................................................................................... 15

Safeguards against ill-treatment of detained persons...................................................... 16

Prison establishments ............................................................................................................. 17
1.

Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................ 17

Ill-treatment..................................................................................................................... 19

Staffing issues ................................................................................................................. 24

Conditions of detention ................................................................................................... 25

material conditions ................................................................................................ 25

regime .................................................................................................................... 28

prisoners on protection .......................................................................................... 30

Health-care services ........................................................................................................ 32
a.

staff and facilities................................................................................................... 32

medical examination on admission and confidentiality ........................................ 34

drug-related issues ................................................................................................. 36

psychiatric care and suicide prevention................................................................. 37

-4 6.

Other issues ..................................................................................................................... 38
a.

immigration detainees............................................................................................ 38

discipline................................................................................................................ 39

contact with the outside world............................................................................... 41

inspection procedures ............................................................................................ 42

transport of prisoners ............................................................................................. 42

Psychiatric establishments ..................................................................................................... 43
1.

Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................ 43

The Central Mental Hospital........................................................................................... 44
a.

introduction............................................................................................................ 44

patients' living conditions ...................................................................................... 45

staff resources and treatment ................................................................................. 46

seclusion ................................................................................................................ 47

transfer of patients ................................................................................................. 48

APPENDIX I:
LIST OF THE CPT'S RECOMMENDATIONS,
COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION .................................................. 49
APPENDIX II:
LIST OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANISATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS
WITH WHICH THE CPT'S DELEGATION HELD CONSULTATIONS ..................... 61

-5 Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT’s report

Strasbourg, 30 March 2007

Dear Mr Martin,
In pursuance of Article 10, paragraph 1, of the European Convention for the prevention of
torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, I enclose herewith the report to the
Government of Ireland drawn up by the European Committee for the prevention of torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CPT) following its visit to Ireland from 2 to 13
October 2006. The report was adopted by the CPT at its 62nd meeting, held from 5 to 9 March 2007.
The various recommendations, comments and requests for information formulated by the CPT
are listed in Appendix I. As regards more particularly the CPT’s recommendations, having regard to
Article 10 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Irish authorities to provide within six
months a response giving a full account of action taken to implement them. The CPT trusts that it
will also be possible for the Irish authorities to provide, in the above-mentioned response, reactions to
the comments formulated in this report which are summarised in Appendix I as well as replies to the
requests for information made.
It would be most helpful if the Irish authorities could provide a copy of the response in a
computer-readable form.
I am at your entire disposal if you have any questions concerning either the CPT’s report or
the future procedure.

Yours sincerely,

Mauro PALMA
President of the European Committee for the
prevention of torture and inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment

Mr James MARTIN
Assistant Secretary
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
72-76 St. Stephen's Green
IRL - DUBLIN 2

-7 I.

INTRODUCTION

Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation

1.
In pursuance of Article 7 of the European Convention for the prevention of torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), a
delegation of the CPT carried out a visit to Ireland from 2 to 13 October 2006. The visit was
organised within the framework of the CPT’s programme of periodic visits for 2006; it was the
Committee’s fourth periodic visit to Ireland.

The visit was carried out by the following members of the CPT:
-

Mario FELICE, Head of delegation (Maltese)

Aleš BUTALA (Slovenian)

Lätif HÜSEYNOV (Azerbaijani)

Ann-Marie ORLER (Swedish).

They were supported by the following members of the CPT's Secretariat:
-

Hugh CHETWYND

Marco LEIDEKKER

and assisted by
-

Eric DURAND, Medical Doctor and former Head of the Medical Services at FleuryMérogis Prison (France)

Alan MITCHELL, Medical Doctor and former Head of Health Care, Scottish Prison
Service (United Kingdom)

Tatjana SIMMINS, psychiatrist and former Senior Registrar at the Medical Services
of Champ-Dollon Prison, Geneva (Switzerland)

-8 B.

Establishments visited

The delegation visited the following places of detention:
Establishments under the Ministry of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
An Garda Síochána:
-

Detention facilities at Athlone Garda station
Detention facilities at Castlerea Garda station
Detention facilities at Mill Street Garda station, Galway
Detention facilities at Henry Street Garda station, Limerick
Detention facilities at Kevin Street Garda station, Dublin
Detention facilities at Mountjoy Garda station, Dublin
Detention facilities at Mullingar Garda station
Detention facilities at Roxborough Road Garda station, Limerick
Detention facilities at Sligo Garda station
Detention facilities at Store Street Garda station, Dublin

Prison Service:
-

Cloverhill Prison
Limerick Prison
Mountjoy Prison
St. Patrick’s Institution for Young Offenders

Targeted visits were also paid to Castlerea, Cork and Wheatfield Prisons to examine persons
held in the segregation areas and those subject to measures of protection.

Establishments under the Ministry of Health and Children
-

Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum

-9 -

Consultations held by the delegation

4.
In the course of the visit, the delegation held consultations with Michael McDOWELL,
Tanaiste and Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mary HARNEY, Minister of Health,
Brian LENIHAN, Minister of State with responsibility for children, Tim O’MALLEY, Minister of
State at the Department of Health and Children, Fachtna MURPHY, Deputy Garda Commissioner
and Brian PURCELL, Director General of Prisons, as well as with other senior government
officials. It also met the newly appointed Garda Ombudsman Commission and Mental Health
Commission, members of the Police Complaints Board, Justice Dermot KINLEN (Inspector of
Prisons and Places of Detention), and representatives of the Irish Human Rights Commission.
Discussions were held with representatives of non-governmental organisations active in
areas of concern to the CPT and with members of the Irish College of Psychiatrists.
A list of the national authorities and non-governmental organisations met by the delegation
is set out in Appendix II to this report.

Cooperation between the CPT and the Irish authorities

5.
The degree of cooperation received during the visit from the Irish authorities was very good,
both at the central and local levels. The delegation noted that information about a possible visit by
the Committee, and its mandate and powers, had been provided to places used for holding persons
deprived of their liberty; consequently, it had rapid access to the establishments it wished to visit, to
the documentation it wanted to consult and to individuals with whom it wished to talk. In particular,
the delegation would like to thank the CPT liaison officers, and especially Mary BURKE, for the
assistance provided both before and during the visit.
However, the delegation observed that incoming correspondence between the CPT and
prisoners continued to be censored (i.e. opened) by prison authorities. The Committee has raised
this issue in the past and it had been assured by the Irish authorities that correspondence between
the CPT and prisoners would not be censored (see CPT/Inf (2003)37, p. 34). The CPT trusts that
appropriate instructions will be given to prison establishments to ensure that the inviolability
of such correspondence is assured.

- 10 -

Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention

6.
At the meeting which took place at the end of the visit on 13 October 2006, the CPT's
delegation made five immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention as
regards: the use of ‘leather muffs’ (in reality more like strait jackets) in Castlerea Prison and in St.
Patrick’s Institution for Young Offenders; the availability of outdoor exercise for all prisoners on
protection (23-hour lock-up); the unsuitability of the holding cells of less than 4m² on the B1
landing in St. Patrick’s Institution; the practice in Castlerea Prison of stripping prisoners placed in
close and special observation cells1 and providing them with paper underwear (nappies); and the
conditions of cells on wing C2 of Mountjoy Prison. The Irish authorities were requested to provide
by 30 November confirmation that:
•
•
•
•
•

the ‘leather muffs’ have been removed from Castlerea Prison and St. Patrick’s Institution;
all prisoners on protection are offered a minimum of one hour of outdoor exercise per day;
the holding cells of less than 4m² on the B1 landing in St. Patrick’s Institution have been
taken out of service;
the practice of placing persons in special observation and strip cells in paper underwear has
been ended;
the cells on wing C2 of Mountjoy Prison are no longer in use pending their refurbishment.

7.
By letter of 29 November 2006 the Irish authorities informed the CPT of measures taken in
response to the immediate observations and of other issues raised by the delegation at the end of the
visit. This response has been taken into account in the relevant sections of the present report.

In previous visits by the CPT to Ireland, close observation and special observation cells were referred to as
strip and padded cells, respectively.

- 11 -

II.

FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED

Law enforcement agencies

Preliminary remarks

8.
The CPT’s delegation visited Garda Síochána (police) establishments in Athlone, Castlerea,
Galway (Mill Street), Mullingar and Sligo. It also visited the Kevin Street, Mountjoy and Store Street
Police Stations in Dublin, and the Henry Street and Roxborough Road Police Stations in Limerick.

9.
The legislative framework governing detention by the police remains essentially unchanged
since previous CPT visits (see CPT/Inf (1999) 15, paragraph 9). It might be recalled that, under the
1984 Criminal Justice Act, persons may be detained for up to an absolute maximum of twenty
hours. The 1996 Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act extended the time of detention to a
maximum of seven days in the case of persons suspected of drug-trafficking offences; in such cases,
detained persons must be physically brought before a judge within 48 hours and thereafter, if
remanded in custody, within a further 72 hours. Persons may also be held under the Offences
Against the State Act 1939 for up to 48 hours.
Further, under established case law, persons under arrest and charged with offences not
covered by the acts mentioned above may, in certain situations, be held overnight in a police station.

10.
The most significant development since the CPT’s previous visit in 2002 is the adoption of
the Garda Síochána Act 2005. This legislation introduces various changes to existing police practice
and management; for example, it establishes a Garda Síochána Inspectorate tasked with ensuring
that the resources available to the Garda are used in the most effective and efficient manner.
The Act also introduces an independent Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to deal
with all police complaints, in line with previous CPT recommendations (see CPT/ Inf (2002) 36,
paragraph 18); it should replace the Garda Síochána Complaints Board in the first half of 2007. The
primary task of the Ombudsman Commission will be to investigate complaints made by the public
concerning the conduct of Garda members. The Ombudsman Commission is headed by three
Commissioners, appointed by the President of Ireland, and is endowed with a sizeable support staff
which should include around twenty investigators.
For the most serious complaints, the Ombudsman Commission has been granted a broad range
of powers, including those of arrest, detention and search of premises. However, as regards complaints
of a less serious nature, the Ombudsman Commission may decide that the complaint should be dealt
with by the Garda itself (see Article 92 (a) of the Act). In that case, the Ombudsman Commission has
the authority to supervise the investigation. If there is no such supervision of the Garda investigation, a
dissatisfied complainant has the right to appeal to the Ombudsman Commission.

- 12 -

In short, the much criticised practice of appointing Gardai to investigate complaints2
concerning members of the police service, as was the procedure under the Garda Síochána
(complaints) Act 1986, will not be entirely abandoned but its use will be restricted and an
independent supervision will be put in place.
The CPT welcomes the establishment of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and
looks forward to following its work.

11.
The delegation was told on various occasions that the Ombudsman Commission may, upon
its own initiative and without prior complaint, inspect police premises unannounced. This is a
positive development and the CPT trusts that the Ombudsman Commission will make full use
of its power.

12.
It is too early for the CPT to comment in detail on this newly established complaints
mechanism. However, its delegation was informed that it remains possible for complaints to be
dealt with by the Garda itself; for example, if a complaint is lodged directly with a member of the
Garda, with no indication that it should be handed over to the Ombudsman Commission and as long
as it does not concern a matter of death or serious bodily harm to a person. The CPT would like to
receive clarification from the Irish authorities on this issue.

13.
A number of judicial inquiries have been set up in recent years to investigate certain Garda
operations or incidents. Foremost among these tribunals is the one headed by Mr Justice Morris.
The Morris Tribunal is investigating Garda conduct, including alleged ill-treatment, in the Donegal
region at the end of the 1990s. It has already published several modules which are particularly
critical of Garda operations, not only in respect of the Donegal region but throughout the country.
The CPT would like to be informed about the measures taken to address the concerns raised
by the Morris Tribunal in relation to ill-treatment issues.

14.
The CPT’s delegation was also informed about two additional measures under preparation to
bolster professionalism and accountability of the Garda; namely, new disciplinary regulations and a
Garda 'whistleblowers' charter. The latter will, apparently, provide for an internal Garda reporting
mechanism of ill-treatment, corruption and other malpractice. The CPT would like to receive
copies of the adopted versions of both the new disciplinary regulations and the Garda
‘whistleblowers’ charter.

See CPT/ Inf (95) 14, paragraph 55.

- 13 -

Ill-treatment

15.
A majority of the persons met by the CPT’s delegation, which carried out the 2006 visit,
made no complaints about the manner in which they were treated while in the custody of the
Gardai. However, as had been the case during previous visits, a considerable number of persons did
allege verbal and/ or physical ill-treatment by Gardai. The alleged ill-treatment consisted mostly of
kicks, punches and blows with batons to various parts of the body. The allegations concerned the
time of arrest or during transport to a Garda station and, in certain cases, the period of custody in
such stations.

16.
In a number of cases, the delegation’s medical doctors found that the persons concerned
displayed injuries and scars which were consistent with their allegations of ill-treatment; the
following four cases can be given as examples:
At Castlerea Prison, the delegation met a prisoner who claimed that two months earlier,
while detained at a Garda station, a police officer had tried to break one of his fingers and that the
finger had remained swollen and painful for approximately two weeks thereafter. Upon examination
by one of the delegation’s doctors, it was found that there was a deformity of the left third
metacarpo-phalyngeal joint, possibly due to a mal-union of a recent fracture.
At St. Patrick’s Institution for Young Offenders, a prisoner alleged that he was struck with a
baton on his wrists and hands by a police officer while handcuffed. The incident apparently took
place after he had been brought under control following an arrest in September 2006. Upon arrival
at St. Patrick’s Institution at the beginning of October, the institution's doctor sent him to hospital,
where he received medical treatment. The young man’s left wrist was still bandaged when
interviewed by the delegation. Upon examination by a medical member of the CPT’s delegation, he
displayed visible traces of the handcuffs on both wrists, and a red haematoma (4 cm x 4 cm) was
visible on the right wrist, further, it was noted that the left hand and wrist, although bandaged, were
swollen, and there was a healed laceration to the index finger. Subsequent consultation of his
medical files at St. Patrick’s Institution and the hospital concerned confirmed the findings of the
CPT’s medical doctor.
At Mountjoy Prison, a prisoner alleged that he was subjected to blows by torches and to
kicks and punches to the head and body by several Gardai during and after his arrest on 11 March
2006. After being admitted to Mountjoy Prison, the person concerned immediately asked for a
medical certificate and was twice examined, first by a nurse and later by a General Practitioner. It
was noted in the medical file that he had swelling on the right side of his face, including his ear and
around his eye, swelling on the left side of his face, abrasions on his left arm and oedema of the
right side of his lower jaw-bone.
At Cloverhill Prison, an inmate alleged that he was subjected to kicks, and to blows from
batons to the head and body during and after his arrest at the end of September 2006. Upon
examination, the man displayed, inter alia, bruising around his right eye-lid and vague traces of
bruising around his left eye-lid; bruising of both the right and the left temples and swelling under the
right knee. The inmate's prison medical file confirmed the findings of the delegation's medical doctor.

- 14 -

17.
The CPT’s delegation also heard various allegations concerning the abusive application of
handcuffs by Gardai following an arrest. For example, in Cork the delegation met with a person
who was arrested by the Garda in mid-April 2006. He alleged that he was verbally abused by the
officers on the street, handcuffed behind his back and thrown into the back of a police vehicle. He
immediately complained about the tightness of his handcuffs, but rather than being loosened, they
were apparently tightened further. He also alleged that one of the two arresting policemen punched
him in the face. At the Garda station, the arresting officers left and he had to plead with other
Gardai to remove the handcuffs; subsequently, he was discharged.
Two days after the arrest, a serious condition developed, most likely thrombophlebitis in
both of his arms, and he was hospitalised for three days. Apparently, the medical staff of the
hospital told him that the condition was caused by prolonged wearing of extremely tight handcuffs.
Moreover, a medical member of the CPT’s delegation noted that the wrists were markedly
scarred some six months after the incident.

18.
In the light of the information at its disposal, the CPT recommends that senior police
officers remind their subordinates that the ill-treatment of detained persons is not acceptable
and will be the subject of severe sanctions.

19.
As stated in the report on the 2002 visit (CPT/Inf (2003) 36), the CPT welcomes the
introduction of mandatory audio-video recording in the interrogation rooms of Garda stations. The
CPT has noted that the 1997 Electronic Recording of Interview Regulations, and in particular
Article 3, limits such recording to persons who have been detained under the 1939 Offences Against
the State Act, the 1984 Criminal Justice Act and the 1996 Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act.
The findings during the 2006 visit suggest that audio-video recording in the interrogation rooms of
Garda stations may have been a significant contributing factor to reducing the amount of illtreatment alleged by persons detained under the above-mentioned legislation.
By contrast, the CPT’s delegation found that persons arrested and interviewed by the police,
who did not fall within the above legislation and hence whose interviews were not usually audiovideo recorded, ran a greater risk of ill-treatment by Garda officers. This was particularly the case
when the suspects were foreign and/or drug addicts. The CPT recommends that audio-video
recording be used for all interviews, irrespective of the nature of the offence.

20.
The Irish authorities have made commendable efforts to stamp out ill-treatment by members
of the Garda. The introduction of the new legislation, as described above (see paragraph 10), is
illustrative of this effort, as is the pilot project at Store Street Garda Station in Dublin whereby most
parts of the station are being monitored with CCTV cameras. The CPT encourages the Irish
authorities to pursue their stated intention to equip all police stations with such cameras.

- 15 Nevertheless, the CPT wishes to re-emphasise the important role of the judicial and
prosecutorial authorities in the prevention of ill-treatment. Several persons interviewed by the
delegation stated that their attempts to complain to the judge before whom they were brought had
either met with no response or been held against them. Others indicated that they had been
discouraged from complaining, even by their own lawyers, on the grounds that it would not be in
their best interests.
It is axiomatic that prosecutors and judges should take appropriate action when there are
indications that ill-treatment by the police may have occurred. In this regard, the CPT once again
recommends that, whenever criminal suspects brought before a prosecutor or judge allege illtreatment by law enforcement officials, the prosecutor/judge record the allegations in writing,
order immediately a forensic medical examination and take the necessary steps to ensure that
the allegations are properly investigated. Such an approach should be followed whether or not
the person concerned bears visible external injuries. Further, even in the absence of an
express allegation of ill-treatment, the prosecutor/judge should request a forensic medical
examination whenever there are other grounds to believe that a person brought before him
could have been the victim of ill-treatment.

Conditions of detention

21.
Material conditions at police facilities were in general satisfactory for the periods of
detention involved which, save rare exceptions, did not exceed 48 hours. The cells were of adequate
size, equipped with toilet facilities and could be properly heated.
However, there were some deficiencies. For instance, at Galway Mill Street Garda Station
the call systems in three of the six cells had been removed or covered with a metal plate. The
delegation also found that the ventilation system in this station blew cold air directly into the cells,
and the delegation met a number of persons who complained that this had kept them awake when
they had been detained overnight. The CPT recommends that steps be taken to remedy these
shortcomings.

22.
Persons held in detention for more than 24 hours should, as far as possible, be offered the
opportunity of outdoor exercise every day and access to shower facilities.
In the light of the delegation's findings, the CPT recommends that the necessary
measures are taken to ensure that these requirements are met. Further, it would like to receive
statistics concerning the number of persons held in police custody for longer than 48 hours in
2005 and 2006.

- 16 -

Safeguards against ill-treatment of detained persons

23.
Generally speaking, the three fundamental safeguards advocated by the CPT, namely the
right of detained persons to inform a close relative or another third party of their choice of their
situation, to have access to a lawyer and to have access to a doctor, continue to operate in a
satisfactory manner, subject to the remarks made below and in paragraph 24.
Nevertheless, some complaints were heard of detained persons being unable to contact their
families or of not being notified of their rights at all. Further, the delegation noted that in some
Garda stations up to 40% of the detainees apparently refused to sign a form attesting that they had
been informed of their rights. The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities ensure that the
right of detained persons to inform a third party of their choice of their situation is fully
effective in practice, and that all detained persons are fully informed of their rights as from
the outset of their detention.

24.
The CPT's delegation noted that the right of access to a lawyer was guaranteed from the
very outset of custody and that detained persons had the right to talk to their lawyer in private.
However, a lawyer was not permitted to be present during any interrogation conducted by the
police. The CPT considers that a detained person should also, in principle, be entitled to have a
lawyer present during any such interrogation. Naturally, this should not prevent the police from
questioning a detained person on urgent matters, even in the absence of a lawyer (who may not be
immediately available), nor, if exceptionally the circumstances so require, replacing of a lawyer
who impedes the proper conduct of an interrogation. The CPT would like to receive the
comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.

- 17 B.

Prison establishments

Preliminary remarks

25.
In 2006, the CPT’s delegation carried out follow-up visits to Cloverhill, Limerick and
Mountjoy Prisons, as well as to St. Patrick’s Institution for Young Offenders. It also undertook
targeted visits to Castlerea, Cork and Wheatfield Prisons to examine persons held in the segregation
areas and those subject to measures of protection3.

26.
Mountjoy Prison in Dublin remains the largest prison in Ireland. As described in the report
on the 1998 visit4, the main prison building dates from 1850 and is built to a radial design, with four
main wings (A to D). In addition, the medical unit has six wards of ten cells each. There is also a
separate accommodation area in the basement of B wing, used for new arrivals and persons seeking
protection from other prisoners. At the time of the visit, most of A wing remained closed for
refurbishment; consequently, operational capacity was reduced from 547 to 454. The two holding
cells in the basement had also been taken out of use following the killing of a prisoner on
1 August 2006 in one of these cells (see paragraph 40 below). On 7 October 2006, the prison was
holding 465 male prisoners5.
St. Patrick’s Institution is part of the Mountjoy Complex and is located in the former
women’s prison in buildings dating back to 1850. It accommodates young persons between the ages
of 16 and 21, and it is the only prison establishment in Ireland for children of 16 years, of whom
there were thirteen at the time of the visit. On 6 October 2006, the prison held 182 inmates, of
whom 22 were on remand, for an operational capacity of 217.
Limerick Prison is the oldest prison in Ireland and like Mountjoy is built to a radial design
with four main wings (A to D). The establishment has a new separate female unit. It is noteworthy
that the newly built C and D wings contain in-cell sanitation. At the time of the visit, a new central
gymnasium, school and medical unit were under construction between A and B wings, and the
kitchen was in the process of being renovated. On 4 October 2006, the prison was accommodating
273 male inmates and 15 female inmates for an operational capacity of 271 and 20, respectively.
Cloverhill Prison has been described in the 2002 visit report6 and on 10 October 2006 it
was holding 408 inmates, of whom about 100 were non-nationals, including a number of
immigration detainees. Wheatfield Prison, located next door to Cloverhill, is a modern prison built
in 1989 with an operational capacity of 378 and an occupancy rate, on 11 October 2006, of
367 prisoners.

4
5

Cork Prison was previously visited by the CPT in 1993 and 2002, Limerick Prison was visited in 1998;
Mountjoy Prison was visited in 1993, 1998 and 2002; Cloverhill Prison was visited in 2002; and St. Patrick’s
Institution was visited in 1993.
See CPT/Inf (99) 15, paragraph 34.
Although the Dochas Centre for women is part of the Mountjoy Prison Complex it is to all intents and
purposes a separate prison with its own Governor and management team; the Dochas Centre was visited by the
CPT in 2002 (see CPT/Inf (2003) 36, paragraphs 30, 41 and 46.
See CPT/Inf (2003) 36, paragraph 28.

- 18 Cork Prison has been described in the 2002 visit report7 and at the time of the visit it was
holding 251 male prisoners for an operational capacity of 257.
Castlerea Prison, opened in 1998, serves the Connaught region and has an operational
capacity of 206. On 9 October 2006 the prison was accommodating 221 inmates, of whom 39 were
on remand.

27.
The CPT was dismayed to learn that there had been no progress in updating the legislation
governing the operation of the prison system. Notably, the 1947 Rules for the Government of
Prisons remain in force. In 1994 the Irish authorities published a set of draft Prison Rules designed
to replace them. Since then the CPT has been told repeatedly that the new Rules would be entering
into force shortly8.
The CPT's delegation raised this issue with Minister McDOWELL and senior officials at the
Ministry of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and was informed that the delay was attributed to the
necessity for primary legislation in relation to prisoners’ rights, but that a Prisons Bill would be
published and introduced to the Dáil (Parliament) before the end of 20069. The CPT recalls that the
continued delay in the adoption of new Prison Rules deprives governors of a modern framework for
managing prisons and prevents the application of clearly defined safeguards for prisoners.
The CPT calls upon the Irish authorities to ensure that new prison rules are adopted as
a matter of priority.

28.
The authorities informed the CPT that a new Youth Justice Service had been established
within the Ministry of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with responsibility for children and
juveniles placed in custody and for youth policy. The process of transferring responsibility for the
management of children’s detention schools from the Ministry of Education and Science to the new
Service is under preparation, and represents part of the Irish Government’s aim to achieve greater
coherence in policies for detained young persons generally.
As regards St. Patrick’s Institution for Young Offenders, which accommodates males
between the ages of 16 and 21 years, the Committee understands that the Youth Justice Service will
take over responsibility for the care of 16 and 17-year old boys in due course. Moreover, the longerterm intention is to place such children in detention schools and not in prison.
The CPT recommends in the meantime that appropriate measures be taken to ensure
adequate separation between children and young adults in St. Patrick’s Institution, in
accordance with the principles laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child and the European Prison Rules.

7
8

See CPT/Inf (2003) 36, paragraph 29.
See 1998 visit report and response (CPT/Inf (99) 15, paragraph 31 and CPT/Inf (1999) 16, page 39) and
the 2002 visit report and response (CPT/Inf (2003) 36, paragraph 26 and CPT/Inf (2003) 37, page 17).
A Prisons Bill was published on 14 November 2006, and is currently being considered by the Dáil.

- 19 29.
In the four years since the CPT’s previous visit to Ireland, no new prisons have been brought
into service while two small prisons, Fort Mitchell and The Curragh, have been closed. The number
of persons in detention has remained stable over the period and prisons are being forced to operate
at or close to their operational capacity10, which is in certain instances already far above their design
capacity. For the so-called 'commital' prisons the situation is exacerbated by the surges in the
numbers sent to these establishments by the courts at certain times of the year (notably, July and
December). The de facto overcrowding, combined with the conditions in certain of the old and
dilapidated prisons, raises concerns as to the safe and humane treatment of prisoners kept in such
establishments.
The Irish authorities recognise the necessity to modernise and expand the prison estate. The
CPT's delegation was informed about plans to develop a large prison complex at Thornton Hall on
the outskirts of Dublin. This complex will include a male and female prison, a juvenile correctional
institution, a training unit and a forensic mental health unit. The intended capacity of the complex is
some 1,200 persons. The best-case scenario only foresees the completion of the construction phase
of this project by the end of 201011, with a gradual transfer of inmates to this new establishment
taking place over several years.
In the meantime, the CPT strongly encourages the Irish authorities to invest the
necessary resources into the existing prison estate to ensure that all prisoners are kept in
appropriate conditions of detention.

Ill-treatment

30.
The CPT’s delegation observed that the majority of prison officers were attempting to deal
in a humane manner with the prisoners in their charge and this was borne out in the interviews with
inmates.
However, in all the prisons visited, the delegation received a number of allegations of verbal
abuse and of physical ill-treatment of inmates by certain members of the prison staff. The alleged
ill-treatment consisted mostly of punches and kicks to the body; such treatment seemed to be most
prevalent during removal to the segregation unit.

31.
By way of example, the delegation met an inmate from Mountjoy Prison who claimed that
after a recent altercation with a prison officer, a number of other officers immediately immobilised
him on the ground face down. Subsequently, while in this position he alleged that he was repeatedly
kicked in the thighs. An examination by a medical member of the delegation revealed that he
displayed yellow/blue bruises on the external sides of both the right and left thighs. The injuries
were consistent with the allegations.

At the time of the visit the Irish Prison Service had an official operational capacity of 3,387 and an occupancy
of 3,163 persons. The design capacity was probably closer to 3,000; for example, Cork has a design capacity of
150 but an operational capacity of 257.
Further developments in the pipeline include a new 138-person unit in Portlaoise Prison (2008), a new remand
block in Wheatfield Prison (2009), and possibly a new prison complex to replace Cork Prison.

- 20 -

32.
At Castlerea Prison, a prisoner alleged that he was assaulted by several officers after he was
apparently seen to have swallowed a piece of cannabis resin. During his removal to the close
observation cell in the segregation unit (still referred to as "strip" cells in most prisons), he alleges
that he was knocked to the ground by a prison officer and kneed between the shoulders, and that he
sustained an injury to his forehead during the assault. Further, one of the officers allegedly stamped
on his left foot. Upon examination by one of the delegation’s doctors, he displayed a 3 cm circular
swelling on the forehead and there was a reddish-purplish bruise (4 cm x 3 cm) on the dorsum of
the left foot, together with a linear abrasion (0.5 cm x 3 cm) on the right ankle. The injuries were
consistent with the allegations.
In addition, the delegation heard similar allegations concerning inmates being ill-treated in
such a way when placed in the special and close observation cells.

33.
In its reports to the Irish authorities, the CPT has consistently highlighted the importance of
the Ministry of Justice, Prison Service and prison governors delivering the clear message that illtreatment of inmates is not acceptable and will be dealt with severely12. In the light of the information
gathered during the 2006 visit, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that the Irish authorities
continue to deliver at regular intervals the message that all forms of ill-treatment, including
verbal abuse, are not acceptable and will be the subject of severe sanctions. More specifically,
prison officers must be made fully aware that the force used to control violent and/or
recalcitrant prisoners should be no more than is strictly necessary and that once a prisoner has
been brought under controls there can be no justification for additional use of force.

34.
In many instances, prisoners, against whom force had been used, were not examined by a
doctor and in those cases where they were seen by a member of the health-care staff, a full
examination did not take place and the injuries were not properly recorded. A prisoner against whom
any means of force have been used should have the right to be immediately examined and, if
necessary, treated by a medical doctor. This examination should be conducted out of the hearing and
preferably out of the sight of non-medical staff, and the results of the examination (including any
relevant statements by the prisoner and the doctor's conclusions) should be formally recorded and
made available to the prisoner.
Moreover, there appeared to be no central register logging instances when prison officers had
resorted to force or had to apply control and restraint techniques on a prisoner. Such a record would
assist management and external inspectors in monitoring the use of force within the prison.
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities take the necessary steps in the light of
the above remarks.

See CPT/Inf (1995) 14, paragraph 72 ; CPT/Inf (2003) 35, paragraph 34.

- 21 35.
The diligent examination of complaints of ill-treatment and, where evidence of wrongdoing
emerges, the imposition of appropriate disciplinary and/or criminal penalties will have a considerable
deterrent effect. As in 2002, the delegation formed the impression that senior management was
determined to take appropriate action when allegations of ill-treatment of inmates by staff came to
their attention. Complaints were investigated at internal level and, in respect of complaints concerning
allegations of assault by staff on prisoners, the usual practice was to refer them directly to the Garda
Síochána for investigation.
That said, the CPT’s delegation has serious concerns as to the effectiveness of the
investigations carried out by the Garda Síochána into allegations of ill-treatment by staff. In the
course of the visit, the delegation had the possibility to examine a number of such complaints and it
would appear that the necessary requirements of thoroughness and timeliness were not being met.
Further, there appeared to be no automatic recourse to a medical examination each time a prisoner
alleged that he had been assaulted by a member of staff.

36.
For instance, at Castlerea Prison the delegation examined three cases from 2006. In one case,
detectives from Castlerea Garda Station only went to interview the prisoner after the particular case
was raised by the CPT’s delegation. This was some three months after the complaint was made and
even then the detectives did not possess a copy of the original complaint, which laid out the facts and
named the alleged perpetrator. In another case, the investigating Garda did not interview all the
prison officers present when the alleged assault took place and used the statement of a prison officer
who was not present, and who thus did not witness any incident, to support the findings that no assault
had taken place.

37.
Many prisoners did not have confidence in the complaints system and did not wish to file a
complaint, even when it involved to ill-treatment. The CPT agrees with the Irish authorities that
staff are entitled to protection from manifestly unfounded accusations and should be afforded the
requisite safeguards associated with due process. However, it is also essential that complaint
procedures offer appropriate guarantees of impartiality, and persons who may have been ill-treated
should not be discouraged from pursuing a complaint.
The CPT is of the view that an independent complaints system should to be established to
deal with all prisoner complaints. Such a system would reinforce prisoners’ confidence in the
complaints mechanism and also assist prison management to deal appropriately with that minority
of prison officers who overstep the mark. The Minister of Justice’s statement to the delegation in
the course of the visit, that consideration would be given to the proposal for an independent body to
deal with complaints by prisoners, is to be welcomed. The CPT would like to receive the
comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.

38.
The Committee is also very concerned when it discovers a culture which is conducive to
inter-prisoner intimidation and violence. In the view of the CPT’s delegation, at least three of the
prison establishments visited can be considered as unsafe, both for prisoners and for prison staff
(notably, Limerick and Mountjoy Prisons and even St. Patrick’s Institution). The extent of the interprisoner violence in these prisons is worrying, and the increasing numbers of persons seeking the
protection of the prison management is a symptom of this development (see paragraphs 62 to 66).
Stabbings and assaults with various objects are frequent and many prisoners met by the delegation
bore the marks of such incidents.

- 22 -

The reasons behind the increase in inter-prisoner violence are varied but there are a number
of interlinking issues that stand out, notably the availability of drugs and the lack of purposeful
activities. The increased use of and demand for drugs within prisons is fuelling a younger, more
aggressive prison population, who have little to do besides plotting how to get their next fix. Further
aggravating factors include the existence of feuding gangs carrying on their vendettas within the
prison environment; the lack of an individualised risk and needs assessment for all prisoners; the
lack of space and poor material conditions in prisons.

39.
In St. Patrick’s Institution it would appear that prison staff, fearing aggression from inmates,
had given up attempting to prevent the frequent frenzy in the exercise yard when prisoners
scrambled to pick up the drugs thrown over the perimeter wall. The CPT’s delegation noted the
widespread availability of drugs within the establishment and the consequences it engendered in
terms of bullying and inter-prisoner violence, and it met numerous prisoners who were the victims
of such violence. For example, it met one young inmate who had been assaulted and kicked in the
head, with a brief loss of consciousness, and another who had had his jaw broken when attacked by
two prisoners wielding a sock filled with several large batteries.
The delegation also noted that in several of the establishments visited, notably St. Patrick’s
Institution, some prisoners regularly did not avail themselves of the opportunity for outdoor
exercise due to their fear of being bullied and/or assaulted by other inmates.

40.
The killing of a prisoner at the hands of a cell-mate in Mountjoy Prison on 1 August 2006
represents a tragic illustration of the unsafe nature of certain prisons in Ireland. The holding cell in
the basement of B Block, in which the incident occurred, was accommodating up to seventeen
persons during the day and seven inmates at night in a space of some 19m². A similar situation of
gross overcrowding prevailed in the second, adjoining holding cell. The Prison Officers Association
had drawn attention on more than one occasion to the unacceptable conditions in the cell13.
Further, it was evident that there was no individualised risk assessment of prisoners prior to
them being placed in these holding cells.

41.
The above-mentioned incident on 1 August 2006 has certainly raised questions about the
classification and placement policy at Mountjoy Prison and other establishments in Ireland. The
inquiry, established promptly by the Minister of Justice, to look into this incident, represents an
opportunity to examine such issues as the demand for psychiatric care in prison, and needs risk
assessment of all prisoners prior to placement and the availability of cell space for vulnerable
prisoners and for prisoners assessed as a danger to themselves or to others. The CPT looks
forward to receiving the results of the inquiry.

See letters of 17 February 2006 and 22 December 2003 from the Prison Officers Association at Mountjoy
Prison to the Governor and the Prison Service Headquarters highlighting the overcrowding and poor conditions
in the two holding cells in the basement of B Block and the dangers they presented for the safety of inmates.

- 23 -

42.
The CPT has stressed in the past that the duty of care, which is owed by the prison
authorities to prisoners in their charge, includes the responsibility to protect them from other
prisoners who might wish to cause them harm. In particular, prison authorities must act in a
proactive manner to prevent violence by inmates against other inmates.
Addressing the phenomenon of inter-prisoner violence requires that prison staff must be
alert to signs of trouble and both resolved and properly trained to intervene. The existence of
positive relations between staff and prisoners, based on the notions of dynamic security and care, is
a decisive factor in this context; this will depend in large measure on staff possessing appropriate
interpersonal communication skills. It is also obvious that an effective strategy to tackle interprisoner intimidation/violence should seek to ensure that prison staff are placed in a position to
exercise their authority in an appropriate manner. In addition, the prison system as a whole may
need to develop the capacity to ensure that potentially incompatible categories of prisoners are not
accommodated together.
Further, prison staff are unlikely to be able to protect prisoners if they fear for their own
safety or if they lack effective management support. Tackling effectively the problems posed by
inter-prisoner violence requires the implementation of an individualised risk and needs assessment,
the availability of sufficient members of staff and ensuring that staff of all grades receive the
requisite initial and ongoing training throughout their careers, including in the management of interprisoner violence. Moreover, it is imperative that concerted action is taken to stem the flow of drugs
into prisons and to provide prisoners with purposeful activities.
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities take concerted action to tackle the
growing phenomenon of inter-prisoner violence, in the light inter alia of the above remarks.

43.
The CPT’s delegation was also informed about a violent incident that took place in the
exercise yard in St. Patrick’s Institution on 26 December 2005. A group of prisoners, apparently
under the influence of synthetic drugs that they had recently collected from the yard, attacked and
injured three prison officers. Three of the inmates involved were identified and placed in solitary
confinement for five days, and two of them alleged they were placed in 4m² holding cells for twoand-a-half days before being moved to close observation cells for a further two-and-a-half days.
One of these inmates claimed that leather muffs were used to restrain him while he was being held
in the holding cell14. While two of the three prisoners were sent to the Midlands segregation unit
with a loss of all privileges for 56 days, the third prisoner was placed on a special regime whereby
he was confined to his cell for 23 hours and had to take his one hour of outdoor exercise alone and
while handcuffed. According to the Irish authorities, this special regime was terminated after seven
days once the Governor of St. Patrick’s Institution was appraised of its existence.
At the final talks with the Irish authorities on 13 October 2006, the CPT’s delegation
recommended that the authorities undertake a thorough and independent investigation into this serious
incident and its aftermath. Such an investigation should examine the direct and indirect causes of the
incident and the measures taken, both as regards policy and discipline in relation to the perpetrators.
The CPT would like to be informed about the outcome of the investigation.
14

At the end of the visit, the CPT’s delegation made an immediate observation to the Irish authorities in relation
to these two matters (see paragraph 6 above).

- 24 -

Staffing issues

44.
The climate in a prison is largely dependent on the quality and resources of its personnel.
Ensuring a positive climate requires a professional team of staff, who must be present in adequate
numbers at any given time in detention areas and in facilities used by prisoners for activities. Prison
officers should be able to deal with prisoners in a decent and humane manner while paying attention
to matters of security and good order. The development of constructive and positive relations
between prison staff and prisoners will not only reduce the risk of ill-treatment but also enhance
control and security. In turn, it will render the work of prison staff far more rewarding.

45.
The Irish authorities informed the CPT’s delegation that due to a protracted dispute between
the prison service and prison staff during 2004 and 2005, many services and activities in prisons
had been suspended or terminated. An agreement was reached with the Prison Officers Association
in August 2005 resulting in a comprehensive Proposal for Organisational Change, which included
introducing more efficient rosters, eliminating overtime payment in favour of an annualised hours
system, centralising prisoner escorts and other changes.
The issue of numbers of staff is complex. The overall staffing ratio for the Irish prison
system can be considered as favourable with a little more than one staff member for one prisoner.
However, the delegation noted in the various prisons visited that services were disrupted due to a
lack of staff, for example the number of prison officers in the medical unit in Mountjoy Prison
appeared to be regularly below the official complement, and that in St. Patrick's activities were
frequently cancelled because no prison officer was available to assist the educator responsible for
the activity.
The CPT welcomes the comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.

46.
The CPT has stressed the importance of developing inter-personal communication skills.
Such skills permit prison officers to defuse situations which could otherwise become violent, and
help to reduce tensions and improve the quality of life in the prison concerned, to the benefit of all.
The findings from the 2006 visit illustrate the necessity for the Irish authorities to take this issue
seriously as, in general, there was too little positive interaction between staff and inmates. Certainly,
in each prison visited, the CPT noted that there were prison officers who were well-respected by
inmates for their fairness and attempts to assist them. However, there were also many complaints
about the unpredictable behaviour of prison officers and even that some prison officers incited
violence among the inmates; for example, prisoners in the basement of B wing in Mountjoy Prison
complained that in the evenings and at weekends certain prison officers appeared to be under the
influence of alcohol, and that some of them would deliberately foster rumours concerning a planned
attack by one inmate on another, from different cells.

- 25 -

The CPT has noted with concern that the provision of ongoing training to prison officers has
been largely non-existent over the past ten years, which the authorities attributed to a lack of funds
resulting from staff overtime costs. Under the new annualised hours system, a percentage of time is
supposed to be allocated towards ongoing training. At the time of the visit, no training on interpersonal communication had yet been offered to prison officers, many of whom told the delegation
that such training was essential. There were also complaints from prison officers that the prison
training school was too academic, with too few of the instructors having recent operational
experience, and that there were no specific management courses (for example, for chief officer
posts or governor grades).
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities invest the necessary resources into
developing and providing training courses for prison officers to assist them in meeting the
evolving challenges within the prison system.

Conditions of detention

material conditions

47.
In all the prisons visited, the delegation noted that each cell was now furnished with a
television set and, with one exception, a small kettle15. Prison officers and inmates expressed their
satisfaction with this arrangement. For the staff, it appeared that many of the prisoners were calmer
now that they could watch television and, given the penchant for drinking tea in Irish prisons, the
ability for in inmates in each cell to boil their own water avoided the dangerous process of
transporting and distributing hot water from a large urn several times a day. Kettles were considered
prized items and prisoners apparently took great care not to damage them.
Efforts to provide prisoners with responsibility for managing their lives should be
encouraged, taking due account of security considerations.
While access to television is certainly beneficial, the CPT trusts that the Irish Prison
Service will continue to encourage and stimulate prisoners to take up work, educational, sport
and recreational activities. Having prisoners spend all their days watching television would not be
beneficial for their state of mind nor serve to facilitate their reintegration into society.

48.
The physical fabric of Mountjoy Prison has been described in the CPT’s report on its first
visit to Ireland in 199316. While there have been a number of improvements over the years - such as
the renovation of B Block basement (including the welcome installation of in-cell sanitation) - the
overall conditions of detention remain poor.

In Mountjoy Prison, all the cells contained a television but the management and staff were still debating the
merits of providing kettles.
See CPT/Inf (99) 14, paragraphs 77 to 90.

- 26 The “rolling programme” of refurbishment scheduled to begin in 1999 never materialised.
The renovation of A Block, which has been on-hold for several years, will now be completed
without the introduction of in-cell sanitation. This means that in-cell sanitation has still not been
installed in any of the main accommodation blocks, and this despite the fact that they continue to
accommodate two prisoners in cells of 9.5m², originally designed for single occupancy; this is
totally unacceptable (cf. paragraph 56).
49.
More generally, overcrowding continues to exert pressure upon the limited and dilapidated
conditions in the prison. Specific reference should be made to the basement of B Block where,
despite the recent renovation, the conditions in the cells were poor, with broken window panes,
stained and peeling walls, dirty floors and broken light bulbs in the sanitary annexes. There were
also complaints about mice and cockroaches.
Further, the delegation found that the cells located on the second floor of C Block (C2) were
particularly dilapidated and in need of urgent renovation; broken or missing window panes, plaster
peeling off the walls. Many of these cells were being used for prisoners on protection. As already
indicated (cf. paragraph 6), conditions in these cells were the subject of an immediate observation.

50.
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities pursue vigorously their efforts to
bring the standard of living conditions in Mountjoy Prison up to a decent level.
Further to the immediate observation made by the delegation in relation to the renovation of
the cells on wing C2, the Irish authorities responded, by letter of 29 November 2006, that the
Director General of the Irish Prison Service “has advised that no prisoners on 23-hour lock-up are
held on C2 Wing. All cells on the wing in question are being renovated. Renovation work has
commenced and will be carried out in two stages, each stage lasting approximately six weeks.” The
CPT would like to receive information on the nature of the renovation carried out.

51.
The situation in Limerick Prison is one of contrasts between the recently renovated
accommodation blocks (C and D) and the old blocks (A and B), where ‘slopping out’ continues.
The four-storey C Block was completed in 2004 and, at the time of the visit, held 106
prisoners in a mixture of single and double occupancy cells. All the cells have integral sanitation
and provide adequate natural light and ventilation. The ground floor of the block contains a wellequipped gym and is used as a recreational area in the evenings; the exercise yard has a covered part
for inclement weather. Further, each floor of the Block contains an area at the end of the landing
where activities can be organised. The three-storey D Block provided similarly adequate
conditions17.
By contrast, A and B Blocks were generally dilapidated and run down; many of the cells had
broken windows, stained walls and peeling paint. Not all the call bells worked and attracting the
attention of the prison officers was not easy, as certain members of the delegation discovered.
Moreover, the conditions were cramped with two prisoners being accommodated in cells of 8m².
The pervasive smell from the use of the chamber pots in each other’s presence compounded these
deficiencies. The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities take concrete steps to provide
inmates in A and B Blocks with conditions comparable to those in C and D Blocks.
17

See CPT/Inf (99) 15, paragraph 50 for a description.

- 27 -

52.
St. Patrick’s Institution offered, in general, adequate living conditions although the
buildings were old and in need of a rolling programme of refurbishment. All the cells had integral
sanitation and B Wing had been entirely renovated since the 1993 visit. However, the delegation
requested that the holding cells of less than 4m² on the ground floor of B Wing be taken out of
commission, which the Irish authorities confirmed by letter of 29 November 2006 had been done.
Moreover, the High Support Unit in the basement, where inmates on protection were
accommodated, was in need of refurbishment (including mending the broken windows, which
resulted in the cells being very cold). The CPT recommends that appropriate steps be taken to
rectify the deficiencies highlighted above.

53.
There have been few changes as regards the conditions of detention at Cork Prison as
compared to 2002. The delegation focused its visit on C Wing, which held sex offenders and
inmates segregated from the main prison population for their own protection, and on D Unit, which
accommodated prisoners (either from Cork or elsewhere in the Irish prison system), who were
subject to disciplinary loss of privileges (see paragraph 93). The cells in C Wing were dilapidated
and did not possess in-cell sanitation; the delegation came across three prisoners on 23 hour lock-up
(i.e. on protection) sharing a cell of some 9.8m², with one of the prisoners sleeping on a mattress on
the floor; at the time of the visit, food had been served without the chamber pots having been
emptied and the air in the cell was rank and humid.
The CPT recommends that efforts be made to improve the state of repair of cells in
C Wing at Cork Prison and that, as far as possible, only one prisoner be placed in a cell of 9m²
and certainly no more than two.

54.
The conditions in Cloverhill Prison were described in the report on the 2002 visit (see
CPT/Inf (2003) 36, paragraph 42) and there have been few changes since then. The practice of
holding three persons in cells of 11m² continues although it appeared that in most cases this is at the
specific request of the persons concerned, as it usually involved immigration detainees from the
same countries.

55.
It is evident from the findings set out above that one of the impediments to creating better
conditions lies with overcrowding. This is a problem which bedevils many prison systems and there
are no easy solutions. However, the scale of the problem was already clear to the Irish authorities in
the mid-1990s and the CPT called for concerted measures to be taken to reduce the population
pressure on prisons.
Unfortunately, while the building of new establishments for remand and women prisoners
(Cloverhill and the Dochas Centre) and the construction of new accommodation units (Limerick)
were welcome additions to the prison estate, the prisons with the poorest material conditions have
continued to operate at, or even over, capacity (Cork, Limerick and Mountjoy). The CPT has long
advocated the necessity for a multi-dimensional approach towards tackling the phenomenon of
overcrowding. Building new prisons is unlikely in itself to offer a lasting solution. Instead, in
addition to reviewing the current law and practice in relation to custody pending trial and
sentencing, there is a necessity to develop the possibilities for alternative, non-custodial, sanctions.

- 28 -

The CPT, therefore, recommends that the Irish authorities pursue vigorously multifaceted policies designed to put an end to overcrowding in prisons, having regard, inter alia, to
the principles set out in Recommendation No. R (99) 22 and other pertinent
Recommendations of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers18. The Committee
would like to receive detailed information on the measures being taken by the Irish
authorities in this respect.

56.
In its report on the 1993 visit, the CPT considered the act of discharging human waste, and
more particularly of defecating, in a chamber pot in the presence of one or more other persons, in a
confined space used as a living area, to be degrading. It is degrading not only for the person using
the chamber pot but also for the persons with whom he shares a cell.
The other consequences of the absence of integral sanitation - the hours spent in the
presence of chamber pots containing one's own excreta and that of others and the subsequent
“slopping out” procedure - are scarcely less objectionable. The whole process is extremely
humiliating for prisoners. Moreover, “slopping out” is also debasing for the prison officers who
have to supervise it.
The CPT had recommended in the past that either a toilet facility should be located in
cellular accommodation (preferably in a sanitary annex) or means should exist to enable prisoners
who need to use a toilet facility to be released from their cells without undue delay at all times
(including at night). Neither measure has occurred in respect of the main accommodation blocks in
Cork and Mountjoy Prisons or in the A and B wings of Limerick Prison. Further, despite previous
CPT recommendations, the Irish authorities have not ensured that in-cell sanitation has been
installed in all newly renovated accommodation units.
The CPT calls upon the Irish authorities to eradicate “slopping out” from the prison
system. Until such time as this is achieved, concerted action should be taken to minimise its
degrading effects.

regime

57.
The general regime within the Irish Prison system provides for a reasonable out-of-cell time
of some seven-and-a-half hours per day. However, in many of the prisons visited, the nature of the
regime is limited; opportunities for meaningful work or access to educational and sports activities
remain insufficient. For those prisoners on protection there are, to all intents and purposes, no
organised activities available.

See Recommendation No. R (2000) 22 of 29 November 2000 on improving the implementation of the
European rules on community sanctions and measures, and Recommendation No. R (2003) 22 of
24 September 2003 concerning conditional release.

- 29 58.
The range of activities offered to inmates in Mountjoy Prison remains limited. Only
111 inmates (less than 25%) were involved in one of the workshops (fabric, metal, computer,
carpentry) or worked in catering or on maintenance activities; further, in most cases the work
activity only amounted to a few hours a day. Fifty inmates attended the two well-equipped gyms
attached to A and D Blocks, respectively. Otherwise, inmates spent their time in the exercise yards
(which had no shelter from inclement weather) and, between 5.30 and 7.20 p.m., in the recreational
areas, where there was a communal television and some games (table football, billiards, etc.).
At the time of the visit, the average daily attendance at the main school and the medical unit
school was 60 and 28, respectively. There were plans to increase the range of subjects and time
allocated for educational activities.
In Limerick Prison there were virtually no organised activities, other than for inmates
involved in maintenance work and catering. While each accommodation block had an exercise yard,
only C and D Blocks had their own gyms (inmates held in the segregation block, on protection,
could have access to the D Block gym between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m.). Further, only C Block had an
exercise yard with shelter for inclement weather and a large recreational space available to it. The
new general building, which should be completed by mid-2007, will include a central gymnasium
and an expanded school area.
The women’s unit contained a small gym and exercise yard, and a cookery course had
recently been instituted in which six prisoners took part.
The CPT recommends that greater efforts be made to provide inmates in Mountjoy
and Limerick Prisons with purposeful activities.

59.
At the time of the CPT’s visit in October 2006, the workshops and educational activities for
inmates at St. Patrick’s Institution appeared to be starting after nearly two years of intermittent or
no activity due to staffing issues. However, the number of prisoners having access to such activities
remains insufficient; 66 workshop places (woodwork, industrial skills and a forthcoming metalwork
class) and educational classes for 40 inmates, but with only 20 to 25 sentenced juveniles attending
regularly. Prisoners had access to a well-stocked library, including three computers. There were also
three fitness rooms with a capacity of 20, 12 and 3 inmates, respectively.
Some 30 inmates worked as cleaners and another 21 worked in the kitchen, laundry rooms
and garden; however, these activities offered little in the way of vocational value.
Given the age-structure of the inmate population of St. Patrick’s Institution and the
particularly difficult backgrounds of most of the juvenile males, it is imperative that every effort is
made to encourage inmates to attend educational classes and to participate in workshops where they
can learn skills to assist them upon their release. Extra efforts should be made to ensure that literacy
classes are made available to all inmates in need.

- 30 To sum up, the limited work and recreational activities on offer and the lack of interest
shown in the educational classes provided are symptomatic of an inadequate activities regime at St
Patrick’s Institution. Much more needs to be done to ensure that inmates are offered, and are
encouraged to participate in, a programme of activities specifically designed to meet the
requirements of the young male population. Young offenders should be kept fully occupied during
their period in custody, otherwise the deficiencies noted above are likely to have particularly
deleterious effects on them, with corresponding implications for them on leaving prison.
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities take the appropriate measures to
improve the regime of activities (including sport, educational and vocational training and
rehabilitative classes) and other rehabilitative services offered to young offenders at St.
Patrick’s Institution.

60.
The situation as regards activities in Cloverhill Prison has not improved since the CPT’s
visit in 2002 (see CPT/Inf (2003) 35, paragraph 49). The regime remains very underdeveloped. At
the time of the visit, besides inmates tasked with cleaning duties, only some 23 inmates were
involved in an activity (kitchen, reception, laundry, welfare parade) with another 30 or so using the
gym every day.
The recent development of education and training facilities at the Prison is to be welcomed,
although they were not operating at the time of the visit. The CPT would like to receive
information about the courses being offered, including the numbers of inmates participating
in them. More generally, the CPT recommends that efforts to develop programmes of
purposeful activities of a varied nature (work, preferably with a vocational value; education;
sport; recreation/association) be intensified.

61.
The only prison visited that had a developed regime was Wheatfield Prison, where the vast
majority of the prisoner population was involved in meaningful work, training and educational
courses. Such an approach is positive and should be replicated, as far as possible, in other
prison establishments in Ireland.

prisoners on protection

62.
The CPT recognises that it may, at times, be necessary to remove prisoners from the general
prison population and place them in separate accommodation for their own protection. As a rule,
such separation should be for as short a period as possible and all appropriate measures taken to
facilitate the reintegration of the inmate into the general prison population, either in the same
establishment or in another one.
In the course of the 2006 periodic visit, the CPT’s delegation examined the issue of
prisoners on protection in all of the prisons visited. While statistics were not available, the
impression gained from prison management and staff was that the numbers of inmates on protection
had increased dramatically in recent times. For example, the basement of B Block at Mountjoy
Prison was now a dedicated unit for prisoners on protection; however, even these cells accommodating 41 prisoners at the time of the visit - were insufficient and a further sixteen inmates
were kept on protection in cells on the first floor of C Block (C2). In other prisons a similar
situation prevailed.

- 31 63.
There was no standard approach towards prisoners placed on protection, other than the
recognised duty of care owed by the authorities to prevent harm coming to the prisoners under their
ward. In Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork and Cloverhill Prisons and in St. Patrick’s Institution, inmates
on protection were concentrated, as far as possible, in a given unit or area of the prison, while in
Wheatfield Prison the policy was to avoid taking inmates on protection off the accommodation units
to which they had been assigned.
The common denominator was that in nearly all cases prisoners on protection were being
kept locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, with only the possibility of one hour of outdoor
exercise. In some cases, outdoor exercise was curtailed, for example, prisoners on C2 in Mountjoy
Prison, on B1 in Limerick Prison and C3 in Cork Prison were rarely offered the opportunity for any
outdoor exercise, and the little time they were allowed out of their cells was primarily devoted to
“slopping out”. The delegation made an immediate observation at the end of the visit in respect of
this issue. By letter of 29 November 2006, the Irish authorities responded that an instruction had
been issued to all Governors by the Director General of the Irish Prison Service “to ensure that
prisoners on protection are offered a minimum of one hour of outdoor exercise on a daily basis”.
The CPT would like to receive confirmation that all prisons are abiding by this instruction.

64.
The CPT also considers it essential for additional measures to be taken in order to provide
prisoners placed on protection with appropriate conditions and treatment; access to activities,
educational courses and sport should be feasible. Moreover, there needs to be a more proactive
approach by the prison health-care service towards prisoners on protection, particularly as regards
psychological and psychiatric care, especially as many of them might spend a year or more virtually
in solitary confinement. There should also be an individual assessment of their needs at regular
intervals and, where appropriate, transfer to another prison should be considered.
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities give due consideration to the situation
of prisoners placed on protection, in the light of the above remarks.

65.
The CPT’s delegation met a prisoner in the segregation unit of Wheatfield Prison who had
been placed on protection by the authorities against his will, and who at the time of the visit had
been virtually in solitary confinement in a close-observation cell for nearly ten months. His clothes
and personal items were kept in cardboard boxes on the floor. The lack of association and enforced
isolation appeared to be taking a toll on the individual. In the course of the visit, the delegation
emphasised that he should receive regular counselling, and efforts should be made to provide him
with some sort of out-of-cell activity.
The CPT would like to be informed about developments as regards the conditions of
detention and treatment of this prisoner.

66.
More generally, there should be a process of regular independent reviews of placement on
protection, with the possibility for prisoners to appeal against any decisions to place them on
protection against their will. The CPT would like to be informed about the reviews and
safeguards in place.

- 32 -

Health-care services

67.
The CPT has observed that the provision of health-care in Irish prisons has improved
progressively since the first visit in 1993. However, further action is required to meet the objective
of equivalence of care. This means that a prison health-care service should be able to provide
medical treatment and nursing care, as well as physiotherapy, rehabilitation or any other necessary
special facility, in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community.
Provisions in terms of medical, nursing and paramedical staff, as well as premises, installations and
equipment, should be geared accordingly.

staff and facilities

68.
In the past, the CPT found that staffing levels in the health-care services of the prisons
visited were inadequate, in terms both of doctors and qualified nurses. On each occasion, the Irish
authorities have recognised the necessity to strengthen such services and have informed the CPT of
the measures taken to remedy these shortcomings19. However, it is clear from the findings of the
2006 visit that progress has still to be made. Further, the CPT’s delegation noted that the
management of medical services in prisons appeared weak and that there was too little synergy
between the different medical specialisations. The lack of any epidemiological information
hampered the ability to evaluate the real needs as regards medical and nursing staff.
In order to better identify the health-care needs within the prison system, the compiling of an
annual report on the state of the medical services in the Irish Prison Service would be beneficial.
Further, the provision of pharmaceutical services within Irish prisons is too variable. The
CPT recommends that a comprehensive clinical pharmacy service be introduced across all
Irish prisons.

69.
At Mountjoy Prison, there were two general practitioners who attended the prison for two
hours every morning; one had responsibility for the medical unit (60 beds) and the other for the
main prison. As regards the main prison, the equivalent of a quarter-time doctor is grossly
insufficient for an inmate population of more than 400. The doctors were assisted by nine trained
nurses and seventeen medical orderlies. This can be considered adequate in terms of numbers, but
some of these staff apparently did not possess the requisite medical qualifications. An adult
psychiatrist visited three times a week accompanied by a psychiatric nurse, and another psychiatrist
specialising in addictions attended the medical unit. Further consultations on addiction for the main
prison population were provided by a visiting psychiatrist half a day per week. The dentist was
present few days a week, as he also attended the Dochas Centre for women and St. Patrick’s
Institution on one afternoon a week each. At weekends, one of the four doctors working in the three
prisons of the Mountjoy Complex was always on call.

See CPT/Inf (2003) 35, paragraphs 55 to 57 and CPT/Inf (2003) 36, pages 27 to 29.

- 33 -

The health-care team at St. Patrick’s Institution comprised one doctor, present for oneand-a-half hours every morning, supported by three nurses and three medical orderlies; a full-time
psychologist was also present. Given the size of the inmate population, the attendance time of the
doctor should be increased. A specialist in adult psychiatry visited three times a week and a
psychiatrist specialising in addictions attended the prison once a week. However, young persons
with mental health problems should be treated by psychiatrists and psychologists specialising in
child and adolescent mental health.
The CPT reiterates its recommendation that Mountjoy Prison benefit from at least the
equivalent of a full-time doctor and that nurses with a psychiatric specialisation should be
recruited at Mountjoy Prison and St. Patrick’s Institution. Further, St. Patrick’s Institution
should benefit from the equivalent of one half-time general practitioner and one half-time
specialist in child and adolescent psychiatry.

70.
At Cloverhill Prison, there was a part-time doctor and a full-time doctor and dentist, and
21 nursing staff. Psychiatric consultations took place on four half days a week, and a psychologist
visited the prison once a week for half a day; a drug addictions specialist visited half a day a week.
Given the profile of the prison population, the CPT recommends that a psychologist be recruited on
a full-time basis and a specialist in addictions attend the prison at least three half-days a week.

71.
In Limerick Prison, there was one doctor, who was present one-and-a-half hours or less
during weekdays. This is clearly inadequate for a prison population of close to 300. The doctor was
assisted by four nurses (one of whom had psychiatric training) and five medical orderlies. A dentist
and a psychologist visited for half a day a week, and a psychiatrist was present for two to three halfdays per week. While the medical rooms and facilities were inadequate, the opening of the new
medical centre in 2007 should resolve this issue. As regards access to medical services, inmates
should be able to have access to the medical services on the basis of need as opposed to the current
practice whereby each wing was allocated a certain day of the week to see the doctor.
Health-care staffing at Castlerea and Cork Prisons was also insufficient.
In Castlerea and Limerick prisons, the delegation observed the rapidity with which doctors’
consultations took place and an inadequate recording of findings in the medical files. It also received
numerous complaints from inmates concerning both access to, and the quality of the consultations by,
the doctor. Taking into account the size of the inmate populations at Limerick, Cork and Castlerea
Prisons, the CPT, recommends that the number of hours for which a doctor is actually present at
these establishments be substantially increased. At Limerick Prison this entails the services of at
least one full-time doctor. Further, as regards Limerick Prison, arrangements for access to the
medical service should be changed, in the light of the above remarks.
The CPT also reiterates its recommendation that at least one full-time qualified nurse
be recruited at Cork Prison.

- 34 -

72.
The delegation was informed that nursing staff came under the authority of a senior prison
officer. The CPT considers that it is important for the nursing and other health-care staff to be seen
to be independent of the custodial staff in order to build a relationship of trust with the prisoners.
This is all the more important in the context where a significant number of nursing staff are former
prison officers. The CPT recommends that steps be taken to ensure that health-care staff are
no longer placed under the authority of a senior prison officer.

73.
The CPT’s delegation noted an improvement in the quality of the medical records as
compared to the 2002 visit, although but that they still left something to be desired. For example,
there was no mention of the second of the two incidents referred to in paragraph 39 above in the
medical file or of the injury sustained by the individual; nor was there any mention of a later suicide
attempt by this same inmate. The delegation also noted that there were several instances of
attempted suicides which were not properly recorded.
The recently introduced electronic prisoner health-care recording system (PMRS) should
certainly facilitate the compilation of statistics and trends. However, it was not being used in some
of the prisons visited, such as Mountjoy. Further, the delegation was unable to ascertain whether the
necessary data protection safeguards were in place. The CPT recommends that greater efforts be
made to accurately register all relevant medical information. The CPT would also like to
receive information on the data protection safeguards in place as regards the system of
electronic prisoner health-care records and the timelines for its application throughout the
prison system.

medical examination on admission and confidentiality

74.
As was the case in 2002, the CPT noted that prisoners were being medically examined
promptly upon arrival in all the establishments visited. However, the delegation was concerned that
injuries upon arrival as well as those sustained in prison were not always correctly recorded, or even
recorded at all. The delegation observed several such cases; for example, at Castlerea Prison the
delegation met a prisoner with two older scars on the left side of his chest, one measuring
approximately 20 cm across and the other 5 cm. He also had a recently dislocated, swollen finger.
None of these was noted in the medical record.
The CPT has highlighted in the past the significant contribution that prison health-care
services can make to the prevention of ill-treatment of detained persons, through the systematic
recording of injuries and, when appropriate, the provision of general information to the relevant
authorities.20 The detailed health-care standards for the Irish Prison Service of June 2004 emphasise
the importance of the initial screening process but do not explicitly lay down the criteria for
recording medical findings.

See CPT/Inf (2003) 35, paragraphs 64 and 65.

- 35 -

75.
The CPT considers that the record drawn up following a medical examination of a newly
admitted prisoner should contain:
i)

an account of statements made by the person concerned which are relevant to the
medical examination (including his description of his state of health and any
allegations of ill-treatment),

ii)

an account of objective medical findings based on a thorough examination, and

iii)

the doctor’s conclusions in the light of i) and ii).

The CPT recommends that steps be taken to ensure that the practice in Ireland is
brought into line with the above considerations. Further, the result of the medical examination
referred to above should be made available to the prisoner concerned.

76.
The 2004 health-care standards referred to above recognise the importance of a thorough
medical screening upon entry to the prison system for, among other things, transmissible diseases,
risk of self-harm and suicide, and injuries21. These standards need to be rigorously applied, all the
more so given that the population of the Irish prison system is increasingly characterised by a high
prevalence of drug users. The existing practice of screening should be further enhanced by a
physical examination and voluntary blood testing for HIV and Hepatitis B and C, as appropriate.
These blood tests should be accompanied by appropriate pre- and post-test counselling. It is also
essential that there is a continuity of care for persons entering the prison system, inter alia through
the timely transmission of information from community health services to the establishments
concerned. The CPT recommends that the health-care standards relating to screening upon
admission be systematically applied in all prisons.

77.
The principle of medical confidentiality is well acknowledged in the Irish Prison Service
health-care standards. Nevertheless, the findings of the delegation indicated that in all the prisons
visited most medical examinations were carried out in the presence of custodial staff as a matter of
policy. The CPT recognises that special security measures may be required during medical
examinations in a particular case, when medical staff perceive a threat. However, there can be no
justification for prison officers being systematically present during such examinations; their
presence is detrimental for the establishment of trust and of a proper doctor-patient relationship and
usually unnecessary from a security standpoint.
Likewise, as regards external consultations, for example, at Dublin Mater Hospital for
inmates coming from Mountjoy Prison, the principle of medical confidentiality should be respected,
taking due account of security considerations.
The CPT reiterates its recommendation that all medical examinations of prisoners be
conducted out of the hearing and - unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a
particular case - out of the sight of prison officers.

See Irish Prison Service - Health Care Standards, June 2004, pages 8 to 11 (notably, criterion 1.3 Doctor’s
examination).

- 36 -

drug-related issues

78.
The CPT’s delegation observed that drug misuse was a major challenge in all the prisons
visited. The management and health-care staff in most prisons visited acknowledged both the rising
numbers of prisoners with a substance abuse problem and the widespread availability of drugs
within prisons. Further, drugs were a significant element in making a number of prisons unsafe for
inmates and staff.
The CPT recognises that providing support to persons who have drug-related problems is far
from straightforward, particularly in a prison setting. The assistance offered to such persons should
be varied; detoxification programmes with substitution programmes for opiate-dependent patients
should be combined with genuine medico-psycho-socio-educational programmes. The setting up of
a drug-free wing in prisons for certain categories of prisoners, inter alia those having completed
treatment programmes prior to or during imprisonment, might also be considered.

79.
The Prison Service drugs policy and strategy paper, “Keeping drugs out of prison” of May
2006 provides a clear statement as to the approach being adopted by the Irish authorities in respect
of drugs in prisons. The CPT has noted that it is part of a national drugs strategy aimed at four main
areas: eliminating the supply of drugs into prisons; dealing with drug abuse through identifying and
engaging drug misusers, providing them with treatment options and ensuring there is appropriate
throughcare; developing standards, monitoring and research on drug issues; and the provision of
staff training and development.
Such a strategy is to be welcomed. However, at the time of the visit, the various elements of
the strategy were not yet in place; for example, there were no security checks on staff or visitors
entering the prison, nor was there effective counselling for new arrivals with addiction problems.
The CPT recommends that all necessary steps be taken to ensure the implementation of the
various elements of the drug strategy programme throughout the prison system.

80.
As regards the methadone substitution programme in operation in several prisons
(Mountjoy, Limerick, Cloverhill) , the CPT has taken note of the Irish Prison Service’s “Methadone
Treatment Programme Guidelines”, with its emphasis on individual assessment and the necessity
for counselling where appropriate. The detoxification programmes being run in the medical unit of
Mountjoy Prison are also commendable. However, the CPT’s delegation was struck by the lack of
adequate counselling for prisoners on methadone substitution in the main prison, as well as for
inmates on such substitution programmes in Limerick and Cloverhill Prisons and St. Patrick’s
Institution.
The CPT recommends that greater psycho-social counselling be offered to prisoners on
methadone substitution programmes. Further, such programmes should be available in all
prisons in Ireland.

- 37 -

81.
More generally, the CPT encourages the Irish authorities to adopt preventive
programmes to reduce the transmission of blood-borne viruses (provision of bleach,
information on how to sterilise needles, exchange of needles, access to condoms). In undertaking
such programmes, attention should be paid to the fact that apparently a significant proportion of the
prison population cannot read.

psychiatric care and suicide prevention

82.
The CPT's delegation noted that there was an increased provision of psychiatric services
within most of the prisons visited as compared with previous visits. Nevertheless, there continued to
be lengthy delays in securing places for mentally ill prisoners at the Central Mental Hospital
(CMH), which means that the out-reach facilities may not be sufficient to alleviate the need for
psychiatric care in prisons. Moreover, among those prisoners placed on the waiting list there
appeared to be no prioritisation as to the urgency for their placement in the CMH.
The CPT’s delegation also found that a number of prisoners in Mountjoy and Wheatfield
Prisons as well as in St. Patrick’s Institution, were being prescribed anti-psychotic drugs without
any regular follow-up or clear indication of their necessity. It appeared that their prescription was
linked to combating anxiety.
Further, the delegation noted there was an over-reliance on pharmocotherapy and an underdevelopment of non-pharmocological interventions.
The CPT would appreciate the comments of the Irish authorities on these issues.

83.
The CPT’s delegation had an opportunity to interview a number of prisoners who had
committed acts of self-harm and/or attempted suicide in the recent past while in prison; most of
these prisoners were drug and/or alcohol abusers. It appeared from their medical records that these
prisoners were not considered to require psychiatric assessment. However, the international
classification of mental and behavioural disorders clearly recognises that behavioural disorder in the
context of drug abuse should be considered as a mental disorder (cf. ICD-10 classification, World
Health Organisation 1993).
Moreover, the delegation noted, particularly in St. Patrick’s Institution, that prisoners who
had committed acts of self-harm and/or attempted suicide were usually not provided with any
psychological support following an incident. Understanding the triggering event that may have
caused a prisoner to commit such an act is essential in order to carry out a proper psychiatric
assessment, yet the medical records provided no relevant information. The CPT wishes to stress
that acts of self-harm and suicide attempts frequently reflect problems and conditions of a
psychological or psychiatric nature. The prisoners concerned should be assessed by properly
qualified health-care staff with a view to determining the cause of their actions.

- 38 -

84.
Within the prison population, young people have specific needs. They are particularly
susceptible to drug abuse and affective disorders, including the behavioural disorder of self-harm and
attempts to commit suicide. An increasing number of attempted suicides by hanging were noted in the
course of the 2006 visit, a phenomenon warranting serious attention. However, the CPT was unable to
obtain a clear picture as to the role of the suicide awareness committees in the prisons visited or of the
measures taken to support suicidal inmates. The CPT reiterates its recommendation that a
consistent and care-user oriented suicide prevention policy be developed.

85.
Prisoners identified as being at risk or having attempted acts of self-harm or suicide could be
placed in special observation cells22. In all of the prisons visited these cells have now been
renovated, now lined with a resistant spongy material, and equipped with a mattress on a raised
plinth, in-cell sanitation and a mounted television in a protective casing; the natural light was
adequate, and the ventilation sufficient. The top half of the cell door is transparent to enable staff to
have better vision into the cell. All the cells had call bells.
The improvements to the cells are welcome. However, the CPT is concerned that the new
design does not eliminate all potential ligature points.
All the prisoners whom the delegation met in special observation cells said they were cold,
and one was visibly shivering. If prisoners are going to have all their clothes removed and be only
provided with a blanket, the prison authorities should take additional measures to ensure that
the special observation cells are appropriately heated.

Other issues

immigration detainees

86.
A number of foreigners who had been detained for immigration offences were being held in
jail, primarily at Cloverhill Prison but also at Cork and Limerick Prisons. The detention period
could extend to several weeks for persons who had not complied with a deportation order and up to
a week for those refused leave to land.
The CPT reiterates that, in its opinion, a prison is by definition not a suitable place in which to
detain someone who is neither suspected nor convicted of a criminal offence. In those cases where it
is deemed necessary to deprive persons of their liberty for an extended period under aliens legislation,
they should be accommodated in centres specifically designed for that purpose, offering material
conditions and a regime appropriate to their legal situation and staffed by suitably qualified personnel.

These are the former padded cells which the CPT had criticised in 2002.

- 39 -

The CPT’s delegation was able to observe for itself the difficulties that a prison, such as
Limerick, faced when having to accommodate foreigners in a carceral environment. For example, it
met a man from Liberia who had been brought from Shannon airport to Limerick prison on a Friday
night and by Tuesday morning he had already attempted to commit suicide twice and was being
kept naked in a special observation cell, with only a blanket to cover him.
Prison managers and officers, in the various establishments visited by the delegation, all
agreed that they were not appropriately equipped or trained to look after immigration detainees.
The Committee calls upon the Irish authorities to review urgently the current
arrangements for accommodating persons detained for immigration offences.

discipline

87.
The imposition of disciplinary penalties was still governed by the 1947 Prison Rules at the
time of the delegation’s visit. This means that the various procedural safeguards required in the
context of disciplinary proceedings, first outlined in the report on the 1993 visit by the CPT and
subsequently reiterated in the reports on the 1998 and 2002 visits, have yet to be instituted (see
paragraph 27 above).

88.
The new chapter on discipline in the recently published 2006 Prisons Bill, taken together with
the 2005 published draft of the Prison Rules, incorporates the essential safeguards raised by the CPT
in its previous visit reports. Notably, prisoners will be informed in writing of the charges against them
and be given sufficient time to prepare their defence; they will also be allowed to cross-examine
evidence given against them, to call witnesses on their behalf, and to make a plea in mitigation to the
Governor before the imposition of any penalty. Further, Clause 15 of the 2006 Prisons Bill provides
for an appeal against a sanction or finding to an Appeal Tribunal, with the possibility of access to
legal advice or representation and to apply for legal aid. Such provisions are to be welcomed.
The CPT calls upon the Irish authorities to ensure that the proposed new disciplinary
system is adopted and implemented as soon as possible.

89.
The delegation examined the conditions in the segregation unit (now referred to as the
special care unit) of each prison visited. These units contained one or two close-observation cells
(still referred to as strip cells), where prisoners subject to the sanction of close confinement were
held. Such a disciplinary measure could not exceed three days. However, the cells were also being
used to place prisoners on protection, in which case they were often confined to these cells for
extended periods (see paragraph 62 et seq. above).
The close observation cells have been recently renovated with a resistant, washable material
called “Velston” and a fixed table and stool have been installed, as well as a mattress on a solid
platform. The cells also have integral sanitation.

- 40 -

90.
The standard procedure was for prisoners transported to a close-observation cell for
disciplinary reasons to be stripped-searched and deprived of their clothing. In Castlerea Prison, the
practice was for such prisoners to be provided with a paper nappy only.
The delegation made an immediate observation regarding this matter, and by letter of
29 November 2006, the Irish authorities confirmed that the practice of providing prisoners placed in
close-observation cells (and special observation cells) with only paper underwear has ceased.

91.
The practice of prisoners being strip-searched upon their placement for disciplinary reasons
in a close-observation cell is unexceptionable. However, the delegation observed at Castlerea Prison
that such prisoners would subsequently be left with only their paper underwear and a blanket. In the
opinion of the CPT, to deprive of clothing a prisoner placed in a close observation cell who is not
assessed as being at risk of committing acts of self-harm and/or suicide is degrading. The CPT
recommends that such prisoners be provided with suitable clothing throughout their stay in
the close-observation cell.

92.
As noted in the past, rule 69 (1) (d) of the 1947 Rules provides that a Governor may suspend
any of a prisoner’s privileges for a period of up to two months. The delegation observed that this
latter provision continued to be exploited to hold inmates in conditions almost amounting to solitary
confinement for up to 56 days. Such a sanction was accompanied, in all the cases examined, by a
forfeiture of remission of up to a maximum of 14 days.
The prisoners concerned were being held in the segregation blocks of Cork and Midlands
Prisons. The delegation visited D Unit in Cork Prison.

93.
The material conditions in D Unit were described most recently in the report on the 2002
visit (see CPT/Inf (2003) 36, paragraph 72) and do not call for any particular comment.
The regime, on the other hand, still leaves a great deal to be desired. The CPT’s delegation
observed that prisoners were deprived of all privileges (family visits, letters, work, smoking,
recreation, radio, television and newspapers) throughout their time in D Unit. Outdoor exercise took
place in a small inner yard; the amount of time prisoners could associate together in the yard varied
depending on the numbers in the unit and the mix of prisoners. At the time of the visit, the unit held
four prisoners and they were being offered two sessions of outdoor exercise of at least one hour
duration, with two prisoners usually associating together at any one time. A small stock of library
books was available for those prisoners who could read. However, it was not possible to obtain
books from the school for educational purposes.
The Committee is particularly concerned that prisoners in D Unit continued to be denied
virtually all contact with the outside world (the exception being limited communication with their
solicitors). However, the delegation noted that exceptionally the Governor exercised his discretion
to permit a family visit.

- 41 94.
As the CPT has emphasised in the past, although the implementation of a regime under
which prisoners are segregated from others for prolonged periods may, in exceptional cases, be
justified for reasons of order and security, the application of such a measure as a punishment is
unacceptable.
Further, it is generally acknowledged that all forms of solitary confinement without
appropriate mental and physical stimulation are likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects,
resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities. The delegation found that the
regime applied in Unit D at Cork Prison still did not provide such stimulation.
The CPT was also concerned to note that Clause 13 of the 2006 Prisons Bill would appear to
leave scope for a disciplinary regime similar to that currently applied in the D Unit in Cork Prison,
namely the possibility of the denial of all privileges for a period not exceeding 60 days.
The CPT calls upon the Irish authorities to review the operation of D Unit, in the light
of the above remarks. In particular, efforts should be made to provide inmates in D Unit with
psychological support and appropriate activities, and to develop possibilities for them to
associate with other prisoners. More generally, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure
that application of the provisions of Clause 13 (d) of the Prisons Bill does not lead to situations
of the kind which currently prevail in Unit D of Cork Prison.

95.
Specific reference should be made to the possibility under Clause of 13 (d) (ii) of the Prisons
Bill to prohibit visits between a prisoner and his relatives for a period up to 60 days. The CPT
considers that visits between a prisoner and his relatives should under no circumstances be
withdrawn for a prolonged period. This is also the spirit of Rule 60.4 of the European Prison Rules
according to which “Punishment shall not include a total prohibition on family contact”.
In the light of the necessity to maintain contacts with the outside world, the Committee
recommends that Clause 13 (d) (ii) be revised accordingly.

contact with the outside world

96.
A prisoner could have up to ten persons on a list of permitted visitors and visits could take
place, in general, Monday to Fridays, with each prisoner permitted one half-hour visit per week,
plus one discretionary additional fifteen-minute visit. Visits do not have to be pre-booked. The
delegation noted that visits were not permitted at weekends when the family and friends of
prisoners were most likely to be available. The CPT encourages the Irish authorities to look into
the possibility of extending visiting arrangements.
The visiting arrangements in Mountjoy and Limerick Prisons have not improved since the
1993 visit (see CPT/Inf (95) 15, paragraphs 159 to 160). The CPT’s delegation observed that when
the visiting rooms were full, they afforded no privacy whatsoever to prisoners or their visitors and,
because of poor acoustics and ventilation, were both noisy and stuffy.
The CPT recommends that steps be taken to improve the visiting facilities in these
establishments.

- 42 -

97.
More generally, the CPT is aware of the ongoing discussion in the Irish Prison Service
concerning the option of introducing screened visits for all inmates, as a preventive measure for
stopping contraband, especially drugs, from entering prisons.
The CPT wishes to emphasise that the maintenance of prisoners’ relationships with their
family and friends can be of critical significance for all concerned, particularly in the context of
prisoners' social rehabilitation. The Committee considers that increasing the security measures prior
to and following a visit is a preferable alternative to systematically stopping all contact visits. The
CPT would appreciate the comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.
98.
Further, the CPT was concerned to note that correspondence between prisoners and lawyers
may be inspected and read by prison staff. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights in
relation to this matter would suggest that, save in exceptional situations, such an interference is
contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The CPT would appreciate
the comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.

inspection procedures

99.
The CPT welcomes the provisions in the 2006 Prisons Bill, which will provide the Inspector
of Prisons with a statutory framework. The Bill reiterates the independence of the Inspector and also
provides for that the Inspector’s reports to be laid before Parliament and published. However, in
order for the Inspector to carry out his/her tasks professionally and comprehensively, the CPT
recalls that it is essential that the necessary resources be allocated for this important function. The
CPT would like to be informed about the resources allocated to the Inspector further to the
adoption of the Bill.

100. As regards children in prison, mainly at St. Patrick’s Institution but also in other prisons, the
CPT considers that it would be appropriate for the Children’s Ombudsman to be permitted access to
these institutions to meet with the children concerned and to raise any particular issues relating to
their conditions of detention and treatment. In the course of the visit, the Irish authorities had
indicated that they foresaw no difficulties with such an arrangement. The CPT would like to
receive confirmation that the Children’s Ombudsman may visit prisons where children are
being accommodated.

transport of prisoners

101. A number of prisoners whom the delegation met complained about the lack of any rest-stop
during transfer journeys between prisons, which meant they could not meet the needs of nature. In some
instances, such as from Mountjoy Prison to Cork Prison, the journey could be as long as eight hours.
There were also complaints about the lack of ventilation in the transport vehicles on warm days. Further,
the CPT is concerned to learn that prisoners were routinely handcuffed during the journeys even though
they were locked inside an individual secure cubicle. The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities
review the system of transportation of prisoners in the light of the above remarks.

- 43 C.

Psychiatric establishments

Preliminary remarks

102. The CPT visit took place in the context of a major overhaul of the legal framework for both
civil and forensic psychiatry. The main elements of the Mental Health Act 2001 came into force on
1 November 2006 and the Criminal Justice (Insanity) Act 2006 entered into force in June 2006.

103. The Mental Health Act 2001 replaces and expands upon various pieces of mental health
legislation, adopted in the course of the past 60 years as well as codifying relevant jurisprudence.
The Act contains a number of provisions which the CPT has been advocating for some time.
In particular, the provisions on the automatic and regular review of non-voluntary placements by
Mental Health Tribunals, the rules on seclusion and bodily restraint, and the provisions on consent
to treatment (Part 4 of the Act) represent important steps forward. The provisions on consent to
treatment also apply to patients placed under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act
2006 (see Article 3 (3)).
The CPT also welcomes the establishment of the Mental Health Board, which has been
endowed with a wide mandate, including standard-setting. The Mental Health Board’s rules
governing the use of electro-convulsive therapy, seclusion and mechanical means of bodily
restraint, as well as its non-enforceable codes of practice on the use of physical restraint and on the
admission of children, have been noted by the CPT and require no comment from the Committee.
The Mental Health Board also appoints the inspector of mental health services, who inspects on a
mandatory basis all the facilities under the Mental Health Act at least once a year.
To sum up, the new legislation generally meets the CPT’s concerns.

104. The Criminal Justice (Insanity) Act 2006 deals with various categories of placements in a
psychiatric centre for persons charged under criminal law. The objective of such a placement could
be for the purposes of observation, in order to determine a suspect's “fitness to be tried”
(Article 4 (6)) or whether a suspect could be considered as “insane” (Article 5 (3)). Further, the Act
provides for the placement of a suspect who has been declared “unfit to be tried” (Article 4 (3)) or
is considered to be “not guilty by reason of insanity” (Article 5 (2)). The Act also regulates the
transfer of prison inmates to a psychiatric centre. Currently, the only psychiatric centre where
persons can be placed under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Insanity) Act is the Central
Mental Hospital in Dundrum, Dublin.
With respect to the various types of observation referred to above, the law sets down strict
time limits. Further, the Act introduces regular (with maximum intervals of six months) and
automatic reviews of placement by the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board. The Review
Board is also responsible for deciding on the termination of the placement of those patients who
have been declared “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The members of the Review Board are
appointed by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

- 44 -

105. The CPT very much welcomes both the time limits, with respect to observation periods, and the
system of regular reviews of placements. However, the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board
was not yet operating at the time of the visit. The CPT trusts that this will occur in the nearerfutur.
The CPT’s delegation was also informed about a court case initiated by a patient at the Central
Mental Hospital. Apparently, this patient claimed compensation as his placement in the Central
Mental Hospital could not be reviewed due to the non-existence of the Mental Health (Criminal Law)
Review Board. The CPT would like to be informed about the outcome of these proceedings.

106. A comparative reading of both Acts indicates that patients placed under the Criminal Law
(Insanity) Act 2006 potentially benefit from considerably fewer safeguards than those placed under
the Mental Health Act 2001. For instance, the 2006 Act lacks provisions on the use of physical
restraint, seclusion and inspection. Similarly, the mandate of the Mental Health (Criminal Law)
Review Board is rather limited when compared with that of the Mental Health Board.
However, it is the CPT's understanding that a designated psychiatric centre, where
involuntary patients under the 2006 Act are placed, should always be an "approved" psychiatric
centre as defined by the Mental Health Act 2001. Such is the case, at present, in respect of the
Central Mental Hospital. The CPT would like to receive confirmation that the above
interpretation is indeed correct.
2.

The Central Mental Hospital
a.

introduction

107. The CPT's delegation undertook a follow-up visit to the Central Mental Hospital (CMH) in
the South Dublin neighbourhood of Dundrum (the previous visits took place in 1998 and 2002).
While the hospital’s infrastructure has remained essentially the same, there have been significant
changes with respect to issues of treatment, staffing and, to a certain extent, patients’ living
conditions. However, both hospital staff and health ministry officials recognise that a considerable
amount of work still remains to be done. The CPT encourages the Irish authorities to continue
with their efforts to improve patient care in the Central Mental Hospital.

108. At the time of the visit, the hospital was accommodating 80 patients for a capacity of 82
beds (two beds on the single female ward were vacant), which is two beds less than during the
CPT’s 2002 visit. Works were being carried out to increase the capacity of the hospital, with seven
additional beds.
With one exception, all patients accommodated in the CMH at the time of the visit had been
placed there involuntarily under either the Mental Treatment Act 1945 or the Criminal Justice
(Insanity) Act 2006. One patient had been transferred to the hospital with his consent from a prison.

- 45 -

109. Upon admission, male patients are placed in Unit B. After a period of observation these
patients progress to Unit 2, and subsequently to Units 3 and 7. The hostel, an independent building
on the hospital grounds, is reserved for the most trusted patients.
In October 2005, a six-bed special unit (Unit 4) was set up for male patients who have
proven to be ‘therapy resistant’ (i.e. not making any progress). This ward has been allocated a
higher staff/ patient ratio and more input from a psychologist than other wards in the CMH.
Female patients are accommodated in Unit A, which has a capacity of seven beds. The small
number of female patients in the Central Mental Hospital means that any progress observed cannot
be rewarded by placement in a less secure unit as is the case for male patients. However, the various
patients in the unit were on different regimes according to their needs.

110. The delegation did not receive any allegations of ill-treatment of patients by the staff of the
CMH. On the contrary, a considerable number of patients spoke favourably about the staff, and the
CPT's delegation noticed a fairly relaxed interaction between patients and staff.

patients' living conditions

111. Successive CPT visiting delegations have noted gradual but steady improvements in
patients' living conditions in the CMH; since the 2002 visit, three of the most dilapidated wards of
the main building have closed down (Units 1, 5 and 6) and Unit B has been fully renovated. Further,
the padded cell in Unit 4, previously criticised by the CPT, has been refurbished and is now in a
good state of repair.
That said, most of the patients' rooms still had a carceral feel to them, frequently had poor
ventilation and lighting, and were in a mediocre state of repair. The bathrooms were also in a
particularly dilapidated condition.
The CPT’s delegation was informed about plans to build new facilities for the Central
Mental Hospital on the Thornton Hall site, outside Dublin (cf. paragraph 29 above), with transfer to
this site projected for 2012. The CPT would welcome the construction of a new hospital. In the
meantime, the Irish authorities should continue to make efforts to provide decent living
conditions to patients in the current premises of the Central Mental Hospital.

112. In this context, the CPT’s delegation was also informed that consideration was being given
to reopening the closed units, in particular Unit 1, in order to increase the number of beds available
for forensic patients in Ireland. Given the dilapidated state of these units, they should not be
reopened before having been renovated.

- 46 -

113. Although patients' rooms in the main building were not equipped with integral sanitation
and remained locked throughout the night, the CMH has managed to bring the practice of “slopping
out” to an end by allocating more staff to the evening and night shifts. If the needs of nature so
demand, patients may be accompanied to a toilet facility. This is a positive development. However,
slopping out is still a necessity for patients placed in the segregation rooms of Unit A. The planned
renovation in 2007 of these segregation rooms will result in the installation of toilet facilities, and
end “slopping out” completely in the CMH. The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities
carry out the renovation of the segregation cells of Unit A as soon as possible.

staff resources and treatment

114. Since the CPT’s previous visit in 2002, the number of psychiatric nurses has increased
significantly, with 56 new posts. Currently, the hospital employs 120 qualified psychiatric nurses
and 45 care officers. It is the hospital's policy to replace care officers, who have not all received
specific psychiatric training, with qualified nursing staff. In this respect, the number of care officers
has been significantly reduced since 2002 when their number stood at 71. The CPT welcomes the
increase of specialised psychiatric nursing staff (see CPT/ Inf (99) 15 paragraph 98). Further, the
hospital has set up a psychology department consisting of five clinical psychologists.
The number of consultant psychiatrists - five - has remained the same since 2002.
115. The CPT’s delegation noted encouraging developments in the treatment of patients; for
instance, the setting up of five Multi-Disciplinary Teams (MDTs), each composed of a psychiatrist,
a psychiatric nurse, a junior medical doctor, an administrative clerk and an occupational therapist.
With the exception of Unit 4, which has its own MDT, each MDT treats patients from several units.
However, at present the psychologist does not have a place in the MDT and his/her role is
limited to performing psychological assessments, for example, in relation to risk and personality
disorder. The CPT would encourage the ongoing reflections to involve psychologists more directly
in the individual therapy sessions provided to patients. Individual psychotherapy or group therapy,
in particular for those patients who are unresponsive to individual therapy, is an important
complement to pharmacotherapy. Such a development would also necessitate infrastructural
adaptations; for instance, Unit 4 does not possess either an interview room or a place for group
therapy. The CPT would appreciate the comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.

116. The management of CMH informed the CPT’s delegation that it already applied the Mental
Health Act provisions on consent to treatment (as contained in Part 4 of the Act) to all patients in
the hospital.
However, the delegation found no trace of a written declaration, by either doctor or patient,
that the patient had given his free and informed consent to treatment, in any of the patient files
consulted. The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities ensure that a patient’s consent is
properly recorded.

- 47 -

seclusion

117. According to the hospital management, instances of seclusion have been reduced
significantly over the past few years, attributed primarily to the adoption of a two pronged
approach. Firstly, the hospital has chosen to accommodate on one single ward (Unit 4) those
patients who accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the cases of seclusion, where they receive more
intensive treatment; secondly, the hospital has developed a strategy to handle agitated patients,
which focuses on verbally defusing a potentially explosive situation and the use of manual restraint
rather than seclusion. Further, the delegation was told that the increase in staffing levels played an
important role in reducing the use of seclusion.
However, the hospital management still considers the use of seclusion in the hospital as too
high. The CPT delegation's observations also indicated that incidences of seclusion could be further
reduced. Moreover, the delegation noted that, at times, seclusion is used for periods of up to one
week consecutively.
The CPT recommends that the Irish authorities continue to take the necessary
measures to reduce resort to seclusion as well as, in those cases where it is still used, the length
of consecutive time spent in seclusion.

118. All incidents of seclusion appeared to be appropriately recorded. However, the CPT’s
delegation noted that seclusion at night was not recorded. Consequently, a seclusion continuing
over several days would appear to have been interrupted at night when in reality this was not the
case. The hospital management explained that the Mental Health Commission exempts seclusion at
night from being recorded as the door of the patient’s room would be locked anyway.
The CPT presumes that the hospital management is referring to Part 1 (1) of the “Rules
governing the use of seclusion and mechanical means of bodily restraint” by the Mental Health
Commission, which came into force on 1 November 2006. Under rule 1.2 it is stated: “A patient
locked up in his or her bedroom at night in the National Forensic Service (Central Mental Hospital)
as part of his or her individual risk assessment and management plan for the purpose of enhanced
security, does not constitute seclusion under these rules.”
The CPT does not agree with the hospital management’s interpretation of rule 1.2. In its
view, a night bridging two daytime periods of seclusion should also be registered as seclusion. This
is particularly the case when the seclusion has not formally ended or the patient remains in a special
segregation room.
The CPT would like to receive the comments of the Irish authorities on this matter.

- 48 -

transfer of patients

119. The hospital faces serious difficulties in transferring patients to facilities outside the hospital.
Consequently, the population remains rather stagnant, with several patients who could benefit from a
less secure environment. In particular, this would apply to patients on ‘sleeping out leave’ (i.e.
patients who spend the night outside the hospital premises). The delegation was told that, as a result,
certain prisoners placed in CMH under the provisions of Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Insanity)
Act 2006 may be sent back to a penitentiary institution prematurely in order to make room for an
emergency. Equally, the threshold for a placement in the CMH is higher for prisoners than it used to
be. At the time of the visit, there were at least 15 inmates in need of treatment at CMH who remained
on a waiting list. Moreover, observations by the delegation in several penitentiary establishments, as
well as recent research23, would suggest that the length of the waiting list was by no means
representative of the real needs for in-patient psychiatric care among inmates.

120. Apparently, initiatives taken by the CMH to create community-based off-site capacity in the
Dublin area have encountered considerable difficulties with, inter alia, local authorities and local
care institutions. In the view of the CPT, it would be most unfortunate if such attempts were
aborted. Experience has proven that such off-site capacity could facilitate access to regular
psychiatric care.
In the latest policy paper on psychiatry, “A Vision for Change”, by the expert group on
mental health policy and published by the Ministry of Health, the establishment of four secure
Intensive Care Rehabilitation Units (“ICRUs”) in regular psychiatric hospitals is recommended. The
Ministry of Health has confirmed that these units will indeed be created and that they will be
accessible for both prisoners and CMH patients. The CPT's delegation was informed that such units
may be established in hospitals in Cork, Dublin, Galway and Sligo. The CPT would like to be
informed in detail about the plans to establish the four ICRUs. Further, the CPT encourages
the Irish authorities to make strenuous efforts to improve access to regular psychiatric
facilities for forensic patients.

“Mental illness in Irish Prisoners, psychiatric morbidity in sentenced, remanded and newly committed
prisoners”, HG Kennedy e.a., National Forensic Mental Health Service 2006.

- 49 APPENDIX I
LIST OF THE CPT'S RECOMMENDATIONS,
COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Cooperation between the CPT and the Irish authorities

comments
-

the CPT trusts that appropriate instructions will be given to prison establishments to ensure
that the inviolability of correspondence between the CPT and prisoners is assured
(paragraph 5).

Law enforcement agencies

Preliminary remarks
comments
-

the CPT trusts that the Ombudsman Commission will make full use of its power to inspect
police premises unannounced (paragraph 11).
requests for information

clarification of whether it remains possible for complaints concerning members of the police
service to be dealt with by the Garda itself (paragraph 12);

the measures taken to address the concerns raised by the Morris Tribunal in relation to illtreatment issues (paragraph 13);

copies of the adopted versions of both the new disciplinary regulations and the Garda
‘whistleblowers’ charter (paragraph 14).

Ill-treatment
recommendations
-

senior police officers to remind their subordinates that the ill-treatment of detained persons
is not acceptable and will be the subject of severe sanctions (paragraph 18);

audio-video recording to be used for all interviews, irrespective of the nature of the offence
(paragraph 19);

- 50 -

whenever criminal suspects brought before a prosecutor or judge allege ill-treatment by law
enforcement officials, the prosecutor/judge to record the allegations in writing, order
immediately a forensic medical examination and take the necessary steps to ensure that the
allegations are properly investigated. Such an approach should be followed whether or not
the person concerned bears visible external injuries. Further, even in the absence of an
express allegation of ill-treatment, the prosecutor/judge should request a forensic medical
examination whenever there are other grounds to believe that a person brought before him
could have been the victim of ill-treatment (paragraph 20).
comments

the Irish authorities are encouraged to pursue their stated intention to equip all police
stations with CCTV cameras (paragraph 20).

Conditions of detention
recommendations
-

steps to be taken to remedy the shortcomings observed as regards conditions of detention at
Galway Mill Street Garda Station (paragraph 21);

steps to be taken to ensure that persons held in detention for more than 24 hours are, as far
as possible, offered the opportunity of outdoor exercise every day and access to shower
facilities (paragraph 22).
requests for information

statistics concerning the number of persons held in police custody for longer than 48 hours
in 2005 and 2006 (paragraph 22).

Safeguards against ill-treatment of detained persons
recommendations
-

the Irish authorities to ensure that the right of detained persons to inform a third party of
their choice of their situation is fully effective in practice, and that all detained persons are
fully informed of their rights as from the outset of their detention (paragraph 23);
requests for information

comments of the Irish authorities on the possibility for a lawyer to be present during an
interrogation conducted by the police (paragraph 24).

- 51 -

Prison establishments

Preliminary remarks
recommendations
-

the Irish authorities to ensure that new prison rules are adopted as a matter of priority
(paragraph 27);

appropriate measures to be taken to ensure adequate separation between children and young
adults in St. Patrick’s Institution, in accordance with the principles laid down in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Prison Rules
(paragraph 28).
comments

the Irish authorities are strongly encouraged to invest the necessary resources into the
existing prison estate to ensure that all prisoners are kept in appropriate conditions of
detention (paragraph 29).

Ill-treatment
recommendations
-

the Irish authorities to continue to deliver at regular intervals the message that all forms of
ill-treatment, including verbal abuse, are not acceptable and will be the subject of severe
sanctions. More specifically, prison officers must be made fully aware that the force used to
control violent and/or recalcitrant prisoners should be no more than is strictly necessary and
that, once a prisoner has been brought under control, there can be no justification for
additional use of force (paragraph 33);

a prisoner against whom any means of force have been used should have the right to be
immediately examined and, if necessary, treated by a medical doctor. The examination should
be conducted out of the hearing and preferably out of the sight of non-medical staff, and the
results of the examination should be formally recorded and made available to the prisoner
(paragraph 34);

a central register should be kept logging instances when prison officers resort to force or apply
control and restraint techniques on a prisoner (paragraph 34);

concerted action to be taken to tackle the growing phenomenon of inter-prisoner violence, in
the light inter alia of the remarks made in paragraph 42 (paragraph 42).

- 52 -

requests for information
-

comments of the Irish authorities on the proposal for an independent body to deal with
complaints by prisoners (paragraph 37);

the results of the inquiry into the death of a prisoner at Mountjoy Prison on 1 August 2006
(paragraph 41);

the outcome of the independent investigation into the incident which took place in the
exercise yard of St. Patrick’s Institution on 26 December 2005 and its aftermath
(paragraph 43).

Staffing issues
recommendations
-

the Irish authorities to invest the necessary resources into developing and providing training
courses for prison officers to assist them in meeting the evolving challenges within the
prison system (paragraph 46).
requests for information

comments of the Irish authorities on the staffing issues raised in paragraph 45
(paragraph 45).

Conditions of detention
recommendations
-

the Irish authorities to pursue vigorously their efforts to bring the standard of living
conditions in Mountjoy Prison up to a decent level (paragraph 50);

concrete steps to be taken to provide inmates in A and B Blocks of Limerick Prison with
conditions which are comparable to those in C and D Blocks (paragraph 51);

appropriate steps to be taken to rectify the deficiencies highlighted in paragraph 52 in
respect of St. Patrick’s Institution (paragraph 52);

- 53 -

efforts to be made to improve the state of repair of the cells in C Wing at Cork Prison and,
as far as possible, only one prisoner to be placed in a cell of 9m² and certainly no more than
two (paragraph 53);

the Irish authorities to pursue vigorously multi-faceted policies designed to put an end to
overcrowding in prisons, having regard inter alia to the principles set out in
Recommendation No. R (99) 22 and other pertinent Recommendations of the Council of
Europe’s Committee of Ministers. The Committee would like to receive detailed
information on the measures being taken by the Irish authorities in this respect
(paragraph 55);

the Irish authorities to eradicate ‘slopping out’ from the prison system. Until such time as
this is achieved, concerted action should be taken to minimise its degrading effects
(paragraph 56);

greater efforts to be made to provide inmates in Mountjoy and Limerick Prisons with
purposeful activities (paragraph 58);

appropriate measures to be taken to improve the regime of activities (including sport,
educational and vocational training and rehabilitative classes) and other rehabilitative
services offered to young offenders at St. Patrick’s Institution (paragraph 59);

efforts to develop programmes of purposeful activities of a varied nature (work, preferably
with a vocational value; education; sport; recreation/association) to be intensified
(paragraph 60);

due consideration to be given to the situation of prisoners placed on protection, in the light
of the remarks made in paragraph 64 (paragraph 64).
comments

the CPT trusts that the Irish Prison Service will continue to encourage and stimulate
prisoners to take up work, educational, sport and recreational activities (paragraph 47);

the approach followed at Wheatfield Prison as regards regime activities is positive and
should be replicated, as far as possible, in other prison establishments (paragraph 61).

- 54 -

requests for information
-

the nature of the renovation work carried out on the cells of wing C2 of Mountjoy Prison
(paragraph 50);

the education and training courses being offered in Cloverhill Prison, including the numbers
of inmates participating in them (paragraph 60);

confirmation that all prisons are abiding by the instruction “to ensure that prisoners on
protection are offered a minimum of one hour of outdoor exercise on a daily basis”
(paragraph 63);

developments as regards the conditions of detention and treatment of the prisoner in the
segregation unit of Wheatfield Prison referred to in paragraph 65 (paragraph 65);

the reviews and safeguards in place in relation for placement on protection (paragraph 66).

Health care services
staff and facilities
recommendations
-

a comprehensive clinical pharmacy service to be introduced across all Irish prisons
(paragraph 68);

Mountjoy Prison to benefit from at least the equivalent of a full-time doctor and nurses with
a psychiatric specialisation to be recruited at Mountjoy Prison and St. Patrick’s Institution
(paragraph 69);

St. Patrick’s Institution to benefit from the equivalent of one half-time general practitioner
and one half-time specialist in child and adolescent psychiatry (paragraph 69);

a psychologist to be recruited to Cloverhill Prison on a full-time basis and a specialist in
addictions to attend the prison at least three half-days a week (paragraph 70);

at Limerick, Cork and Castlerea Prisons, the number of hours for which a doctor is actually
present to be substantially increased. At Limerick Prison this entails the services of at least
one full-time doctor (paragraph 71);

- 55 -

arrangements for access to the medical service to be changed at Limerick Prison, in the light
of the remarks in paragraph 71 (paragraph 71);

at least one full-time qualified nurse to be recruited at Cork Prison (paragraph 71);

steps to be taken to ensure that health-care staff are no longer placed under the authority of a
senior prison officer (paragraph 72);

greater efforts to be made to accurately register all relevant medical information
(paragraph 73).
comments
-

an annual report on the state of the medical services in the Irish Prison Service would be
beneficial (paragraph 68).
requests for information

the data protection safeguards in place as regards the system of electronic prisoner health
care records and the timelines for its application throughout the prison system
(paragraph 73).
medical examination on admission and confidentiality
recommendations

steps to be taken to ensure that the practice in Ireland is brought into line with the
considerations set out in paragraph 75 concerning the contents of the record drawn up
following a medical examination of a newly admitted prisoner. The result of the medical
examination referred to above should be made available to the prisoner concerned
(paragraph 75);

health care standards relating to screening upon admission to be systematically applied in all
prisons (paragraph 76);

all medical examinations of prisoners to be conducted out of the hearing and - unless the
doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case - out of the sight of prison officers
(paragraph 77).

- 56 -

drug related issues
recommendations
-

all necessary steps to be taken to ensure the implementation of the various elements of the
drug strategy programme “Keeping drugs out of prison” throughout the prison system
(paragraph 79);

greater psycho-social counselling to be offered to prisoners on methadone substitution
programmes. Such programmes should be available in all prisons in Ireland (paragraph 80).
comments

the Irish authorities are encouraged to adopt preventive programmes to reduce the
transmission of blood borne viruses (paragraph 81).

psychiatric care and suicide prevention
recommendations
-

a consistent and care-user oriented suicide prevention policy to be developed
(paragraph 84).
comments

acts of self-harm and suicide attempts frequently reflect problems and conditions of a
psychological or psychiatric nature. The prisoners concerned should be assessed by properly
qualified health care staff with a view to determining the cause of their actions
(paragraph 83);

the new design of the special observation cells does not eliminate all potential ligature
points (paragraph 85);

additional measures should be taken to ensure the special observation cells are appropriately
heated (paragraph 85).
requests for information

comments of the Irish authorities on the issues raised in paragraph 82 concerning psychiatric
care in prison (paragraph 82).

- 57 Other issues
immigration detainees
recommendations
-

current arrangements for accommodating persons detained for immigration offences to be
reviewed urgently (paragraph 86).

discipline
recommendations
-

the proposed new disciplinary system to be adopted and implemented as soon as possible
(paragraph 88);

prisoners placed for disciplinary reasons in a close observation cell to be provided with
suitable clothing throughout their stay in such a cell (paragraph 91);

the operation of D Unit in Cork Prison to be reviewed, in the light of the remarks made in
paragraphs 93 and 94. In particular, efforts should be made to provide inmates in D Unit
with psychological support and appropriate activities, and to develop possibilities for them
to associate with other prisoners. More generally, appropriate steps should be taken to
ensure that application of the provisions of Clause 13 (d) of the Prisons Bill does not lead to
situations of the kind which currently prevail in Unit D of Cork Prison (paragraph 94);

Clause 13 (d) (ii) of the Prisons Bill to be revised, in the light of the remarks in paragraph 95
(paragraph 95).

contact with the outside world
recommendations
-

steps to be taken to improve the visiting facilities in Mountjoy and Limerick Prisons
(paragraph 96).
comments

the Irish authorities are encouraged to look into the possibility of extending visiting
arrangements (paragraph 96).
requests for information

comments on the possibility of increasing the security measures prior to and following a
visit instead of systematically stopping all contact visits (paragraph 97);

comments on the remarks made in paragraph 98 concerning the confidentiality of prisoners’
correspondence with their lawyers (paragraph 98).

- 58 -

inspection procedures
requests for information
-

the resources allocated to the Inspector of Prisons further to the adoption of the Prisons Bill
(paragraph 99);

confirmation that the Children’s Ombudsman may visit prisons where children are being
accommodated (paragraph 100).

transport of prisoners
requests for information
-

the system of transportation of prisoners to be reviewed, in the light of the remarks made in
paragraph 101 (paragraph 101).

Psychiatric establishments

Preliminary remarks
comments
-

the CPT trusts that the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board will begin to operate in
the near future (paragraph 105).
requests for information

the outcome of the proceedings in the case initiated by a patient at the Central Mental
Hospital referred to in paragraph 105 (paragraph 105);

confirmation that a designated psychiatric centre, where involuntary patients under the 2006
Act are placed, should always be an "approved" psychiatric centre as defined by the Mental
Health Act 2001 (paragraph 106).

- 59 -

The Central Mental Hospital
recommendations
-

the renovation of the segregation cells of Unit A to be carried out as soon as possible
(paragraph 113);

a patient’s consent to treatment to be properly recorded (paragraph 116);

the Irish authorities to continue to take the necessary measures to reduce resort to seclusion
as well as, in those cases where it is still used, the length of consecutive time spent in
seclusion (paragraph 117).
comments

the CPT encourages the Irish authorities to continue with their efforts to improve patient
care in the Central Mental Hospital (paragraph 107);

the CPT would welcome the construction of a new hospital. In the meantime, the Irish
authorities should continue to make efforts to provide decent living conditions to patients in
the current premises of the Central Mental Hospital (paragraph 111);

the closed units should not be opened before they have been renovated (paragraph 112);

the CPT encourages the Irish authorities to make strenuous efforts to improve access to
regular psychiatric facilities for forensic patients (paragraph 120).
requests for information

comments of the Irish authorities on the possibility of involving psychologists more directly
in the individual therapy sessions provided to patients (paragraph 115);

comments of the Irish authorities on the question of registering as seclusion a night bridging
two daytime periods of seclusion (paragraph 118);

the plans to establish four secure Intensive Care Rehabilitation Units (ICRUs)
(paragraph 120).

- 61 -

APPENDIX II

LIST OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES,
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS
WITH WHICH THE CPT'S DELEGATION HELD CONSULTATIONS

National authorities

Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Michael McDOWELL T.D.
Sean AYLWARD
James MARTIN
Michael FLAHIVE

Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform
Secretary General
Assistant Secretary, Prisons and Probation Policy
Assistant Secretary, Garda

Michelle SHANNON

Director of Youth Justice Service

Brian PURCELL
Derek BRENNAN
Enda DOOLEY

Director General, Irish Prison Service
Director of Regimes, Irish Prison Service
Director of Medical Services, Irish Prison Service

Fachtna MURPHY
Nacie RICE
Gerry BLAKE

Deputy Commissioner, An Garda Síochána
Assistant Commissioner, An Garda Síochána
Chief Superintendent, An Garda Síochána

Frank BOUGHTON
Hugh BOYLE

Principal Officer, Criminal Law Division
Principal Officer, Criminal Law Division

Michael KIRRANE
Pat MURRAY

Principal Officer, Garda Planning
Principal Officer, Garda Planning

Gerry MALONE

Principal Officer, Irish Naturalisation and
Immigration Service

Mary BURKE

Principal Officer, Prisons and Probation Policy
Division and CPT Liaison Officer

Dermot KINLEN

Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention

- 62 -

Department of Health and Children
Mary HARNEY T.D.
Brian LENIHAN T.D.
Tim O’MALLEY T.D.

Minister for Health and Children
Minister of State with responsibility for children
Minister of State with special responsibility for
Mental Health

Sylda LANGFORD

Director General

Fergal LYNCH
Dermot RYAN

Assistant Secretary, Continuing Care Policy
Principal Officer, Mental Health

Paul HOWARD

CPT Liaison Officer

Other authorities
Irish Council for Human Rights
Mental Health Commission
Police Ombudsman Commission
Police Complaints Board
Prison Inspectorate
Health Service Executive

Non-governmental organisations

Children’s Alliance
Irish Council of Civil Liberties
Irish Prison Reform Trust

Other organisations

Irish College of Psychiatry

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side