Brockwell's (Derek) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Maguire J |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NIQB 53 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NIQB 53
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: MAG10296
Delivered: 01/06/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
2017 No. 11865/01
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY DEREK BROCKWELL
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION TO PLACE THE APPLICANT
ON RULE 32
________
MAGUIRE J
Introduction
[1] These proceedings were commenced on 3 February 2017. Leave to apply for
judicial review was granted on 7 February 2017. The case has been moved forward
quickly. This judicial review concerns the applicant who is a man of 55 years of age
and is a sentenced prisoner currently incarcerated at Her Majesty’s Prison
Maghaberry. Mr Devine BL represented the applicant before the court and
Mr McQuitty BL represented the respondent. The court is grateful to them for their
extensive written submissions and oral arguments which the court has taken into
account.
[2] The applicant seeks to challenge the invocation by the prison authority in
respect of him of the regime provided for in rule 32 of the Prison Rules. He also
contests his continued placement on this regime. Rule 32 was invoked in this case
on 5 October 2016. It is, therefore, the case that the applicant has been subjected to
this regime for in the region of eight months to date. He remains on rule 32 at the
time of writing. The regime itself involves that he is subject to restriction of
association. What this means in practice is that the applicant is housed in what is
called the Care and Supervision Unit (“CSU”) within the prison. In that unit there
are a number of individual cells. The exact number has not been provided to the
court but at the date of Governor Armour’s affidavit, filed on behalf of the
respondent, there were some 19 prisoners housed in the unit. The unit is manned
24 hours a day and 7 days per week. The prisoner, subject to whether he avails of a
one hour period of exercise which he will be offered per day, is retained in his cell
for 23 hours per day. He eats his food in his cell and attends to his toileting in cell.
2
He has open to him the use of an emergency call bell when he wishes to contact
medical staff. He is visited by healthcare professionals at least once a day and,
according to Governor Armour “all prisoners are … visited daily by a senior
member of the management team”. A member of the Independent Monitoring
Board (“IMB”), the court has been told, visits the CSU once per week.
[3] The applicant can be visited by visitors but his domestic visits must take place
in what is described as closed conditions. A glass partition therefore separates him
from his visitors. The court has been informed that his legal visits are conducted in
the normal way in the legal visits area.
[4] The court has been assured that the applicant can on request have access to
telephone and showers.
[5] While there is no description of the cell contained in the papers the court has
no reason to believe that it is other than basic. What is in the cell appears to depend
on the prisoner’s regime level.
[6] Prisoners on Rule 32 are not able to associate with one another and their
dealings with staff are generally conducted at the door of the cell which is not fully
opened but kept on a chain. There is no contact with prisoners in ordinary location.
The background
[7] As the court understands it, the applicant is an Englishman. While the court
has not been provided with a copy of his criminal record, it appears that he has a
very significant record mostly in the context of robberies and other offences of
violence.
[8] According to the affidavit evidence, he had been serving out the tariff period
of a number of life sentences to which he was subject at Kirkham Prison in England.
He was getting towards the end of his tariff period. On a date in 2012 the applicant
went absent without leave from the prison having been involved in a form of outside
placement. The applicant fled to Dublin where he committed a number of robberies
for which he was later sentenced to imprisonment in the Republic of Ireland. He
was housed as a result in Portlaoise Prison. On or about 17 February 2015, the
applicant attended Tallagh Hospital in Dublin in connection with medical treatment
for his diabetic condition. In order to attend he was accompanied by two prison
officers. While in the hospital (probably with the assistance of others who are
unknown) he was able to acquire a sharp edged weapon which he proceeded to use
on the two prison officers. Both officers, the court has been told, were caused serious
injuries and the applicant (again with the likely help of others) escaped and went at
large.
[9] On the following day the applicant was arrested in Belfast. Before his arrest
he is believed to have committed a number of robberies in the city. At the time of his
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Patterson's (Michael) Application
...has not demonstrated the necessity which the invocation and application of Rule 32 requires: see for example Re Brockwell’s Application [2017] NIQB 53 at [70]–[73]. [5] No affidavit has been sworn by the applicant. The only affidavit is that of his solicitor, sworn on 20 October 2017, who a......