John Gilligan, who is serving 28 years on drugs charges, has taken a High Court challenge to a decision to detain him in a "bunker" in Portlaoise Prison for two months.
The decision to move Gilligan followed an alleged assault of a senior prison officer, which he denies. Gilligan is also challenging his loss of certain privileges.
Lawyers for Gilligan applied yesterday to Mr Justice Kelly for leave to seek a number of orders against the prison governor, the Minister for Justice and the State. They also sought a stay on the punishment pending the judicial review proceedings.
After hearing submissions by Mr Conleth Bradley, for Gilligan, the judge said he would not grant leave on an ex parte (one side) basis but would allow the respondents to be put on notice of the application. He returned the matter for 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Mr Bradley argued that Gilligan was punished without being given the most basic requirements of fair procedures. He applied for leave to quash the decision of March 27th to punish Gilligan under prison rules and to seek a declaration that his client's right to fair procedures was breached by how the decision was reached. Gilligan also wants to seek a declaration that the decision to house him in the bunker area and not in the general wing was outside prison rules. Gilligan claims he was punished before being heard in his own defence and the authorities reached their decision without inquiring into the circumstances.
The decision of March 27th and the cumulative effect of the punishment and loss of privileges imposed were unconstitutional, it was further claimed.
In an affidavit, Gilligan said he had been jailed in Portlaoise since his extradition from Britain in February last year. He was sentenced at the Special Criminal Court to terms of 12 and 28 years on conviction of importing and having cannabis resin for sale and supply. An appeal was pending.
In the decision of March 27th it was alleged Gilligan had assaulted an assistant chief officer on March 25th by striking him in the face with his fist. When charged under prison rules he had refused to reply. He had denied the contents of both the decision and the contents of a form for reporting a prisoner.
Before attending a consultation with his solicitor, Gilligan said, he had asked an assistant chief prison officer (ACO) to open the tuck shop so he might buy biscuits and soft drinks. This was refused.
Gilligan said he then asked a chief officer (CO), who gave permission. Gilligan said he told the ACO this. A verbal exchange took place and expletives were used. Gilligan said he replied, and the ACO grabbed him and said he was getting no tuck shop. He told his solicitor what had happened, and unsuccessful efforts were made to resolve the matter.
Gilligan said he was told he would go to the bunker area. At 6.15 p.m. a deputy governor told him of his punishment. He made no reply.
Gilligan said his loss of privileges included loss of visits, use of the canteen and postal facilities. He was allowed legal visits and correspondence. From 8 a.m. until 12.30 p.m. he could use the gym. Then he was locked up until 2.20 p.m. when he could use the gym again until 4 p.m.
He understood the authorities were arranging for him to have exercise from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., after which he was locked up. His cell was about 11 by six feet and seven feet high. Three sets of bars blocked daylight from a small window, and almost no fresh air could be obtained.