The Court of Appeal (CoA) has established that a prison governor doesn’t have the authority to prohibit a lawyer from visiting her clients in the prison based on the accusation of her being disrespectful to the prison employees.
This resolution was the outcome of a case involving Caroline Egan, a solicitor from Dublin. She was banned by the governor of Cloverhill prison from conducting “walk-in” visits to her clients, after personnel complaints about her alleged rudeness and aggressive demeanor towards them.
Ms. Egan refuted these accusations vehemently. Back on July 4th, 2022, the ban was introduced under the prison rule designated as 36.9.c which stipulates that exclusions can be put in place to “safeguard orderly conduct and reliable and secure custody.”
Evidence was presented to the court that three complaints against Ms. Egan were logged: two in April from individual prison employees and one in May lodged by the prison officer’s trade union which was more general in nature. The physical barring caused substantial disruption to Ms. Egan’s work as certain clients, under the impression she wouldn’t be able to meet with them, expressed a desire to appoint a different solicitor, she revealed.
The High Court articulated that a prison governor doesn’t have the authority to enforce a universal ban on a lawyer’s personal visits to all inmates, for the purpose of ensuring solicitors interact courteously with staff and prevent any potential rudeness. This rule is similar to how public officials cannot decline to engage with rude members of the public on a universal basis.
Despite the governor’s appeal against the ruling, on Tuesday a unanimous decision by a three-judge CoA panel rejected the appeal. The CoA, in one of two judgments presented by Mr Justice Brian O’Moore, asserted that there should have been a better communication from Ms. Egan to discuss these complaints with the governor. However, it was found that she was never informed about the details of these complaints, nor was she cautioned about the ban she would face if she neglected to meet the governor. The decision to ban her visits to her clients in Cloverhill considerably hampered Ms. Egan’s professional life, Mr. Justice O’Moore said. Even though the governor proposed that the solicitor’s entitlement to due process was fully invoked, it went unheeded.
The judge emphasised that the governor had failed so egregiously in extending basic rights to Ms Egan that it was unnecessary to consult any authority for the court’s assessment. He highlighted that it was unjustifiable for any governor to prohibit a solicitor from seeing their clients only because they had shown disrespect towards prison officials. The judge further clarified that the regulation in question was designed to address more serious issues.
He stated that the regulation also pertained to controlled narcotics, the execution of criminal activities, and the safeguarding of inmates, alongside maintaining a “good order”. He believed that a solicitor’s discourteous or passive-aggressive behaviour does not endanger the prison’s orderliness.
Meanwhile, Justice Ann Power, in a distinct verdict, concurred that the appeal should be rejected. Still, she opined that the court had validated the governor’s argument that the pertinent prison regulation isn’t limited to any specific kind of visit and extends to legal counsellors visiting their clients in detention.