Man denied ‘€1m costs’ in case over prison slopping out regime

A High Court judge has refused to award a former prisoner substantial legal costs, estimated at more than €1 million, related to his case over the slopping out regime while he was in jail.

The refusal in the case of Gary Simpson, a former inmate at Mountjoy Prison, may have implications for some of an estimated 1,200 other slopping out cases that are in the pipeline.

Mr Justice Michael White refused to award costs to Mr Simpson against the State for reasons including his findings that he had given some "untruthful and grossly exaggerated" evidence in regard to certain claims.

If the court had accepted all of Mr Simpson’s evidence concerning his treatment, it would have regarded that as “torture” with consequent hugely adverse implications for the reputations of many people involved in the prison service.

Mr Justice White said he appreciated lawyers for Mr Simpson put substantial work and engagement into the case and he had great sympathy for them, but he could not “in conscience” award costs against the State.

Nor would he make an order requring Mr Simpson to pay the State’s costs. He had not just been critical of Mr Simpson, he had also voiced criticism of the defendants in relation to a number of matters including access to showers for prisoners on 23 hour lock up and delays responding to their solicitors.

Under the slopping out regime there was no in-cell sanitation and no running water but basins and other receptacles were provided for prisoners to urinate and defecate into and for washing. Urine and faeces would later have to be disposed of by prisoners in a designated slopping out area.

Right to privacy

In a lengthy judgment last September, the judge found slopping out breached Mr Simpson’s constitutional right to privacy and dignity but refused to award damages for that breach because of his finding some of Mr Simpson’s evidence concerning his treatment was either untruthful or grossly exaggerated.

He rejected a key claim that slopping out also breached his right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Mr Justice White heard submissions on Thursday concerning liability for the costs of the 30 day case.

James Devlin SC, for Mr Simpson, argued he was entitled to costs against the defendants as he had won a declaration of breach of constitutional rights. He proposed the court fashion a costs order that would do “justice” to both sides by granting Mr Simpson his costs but making no order for costs of some hearing days which resulted in findings adverse to Mr Simpson.

Paul Gallagher SC, for the State, argued Mr Simpson’s conduct and evidence disentitled him to any costs. The court found he gave untruthful and exaggerated evidence with potentially enormous adverse conseqeuences for the reputations of many in the prison system and many hearing days had to focus on rebutting such claims, he argued.

In his ruling, Mr Justice White said it had been a very difficult case requring many issues to be decided.

However, definitive principles on costs make clear a plaintiff who engages in falsehoods and exaggeration can expose themselves to costs orders.

He had particular concerns in relation to litigation involving prisoners who are detained by the State and the courts have a duty to take seriously claims of mistreatment of neglect, to be wary of institutional abuse and “subjective truth” and to seek pieces of independent evidence and corroboration to deal with certain issues.