Courts

Costs awarded against woman after case seeking damages over ‘slopping out’ in prison dismissed

Judge rules action by June Moore, who claimed using chamber pot in shared cell was degrading, is statute barred

June Moore contended that she and other inmates were required to empty a chamber pot, or slop out, once they were released from their cells in the mornings
June Moore contended that she and other inmates were required to empty a chamber pot, or slop out, once they were released from their cells in the mornings
Wed May 01 2024 - 20:32

A woman who sought to sue over an alleged breach of her rights because of the practice of slopping out in Limerick Women’s Prison when she was an inmate there more than 20 years ago has had her case dismissed by the High Court.

Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan ruled the proceedings, initiated seven years ago and some 13 years after the woman was released from the prison, are statute barred and should be dismissed.

The judge, on the application of Frederick Gilligan BL, with Remy Farrell SC, for the State parties, awarded costs against the applicant, June Moore, of Killala Gardens, Knocknaheeny, Cork City.

Ms Justice Phelan said it was appropriate in the proper administration of justice to determine as a preliminary issue whether the proceedings as currently constituted were statute barred. She said she was satisfied that this was a pure question of law.

READ SOME MORE

Ms Moore had been incarcerated at the Limerick prison for a period of about 13 months between February 2002 and March 2004. She was granted full release on March 25th, 2004.

In her proceedings against the Governor of Limerick Prison, the Irish Prison Service, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General, Ms Moore sought a declaration that the conditions and circumstances of her detention in the prison amounted to a breach of her rights under the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

She also sought a declaration that the practice of slopping out and using a chamber pot in the context of shared cell occupancy amounted to a breach of her rights to dignity and respect for her private life as guaranteed in the Irish Constitution and under the convention. Ms Moore also sought damages.

She claimed she shared a cell that was only intended for one person and there was a mattress on the floor and two bunk beds in an extremely limited space. She further claimed she had to go to the toilet in a pot on the floor in the cell in front of her other inmates and contended she found this embarrassing, humiliating and degrading.

Ms Moore contended that she and her other inmates were required to empty the pot, or slop out, once they were released from the cell in the mornings. She further claimed she was forced to live with constant nausea from the terrible smells in the cell.

The defendants said the allegations made by Ms Moore regarding the sanitary conditions in the prison were denied, but it did say that at that time the inmate was provided with a chamber pot for toileting while in her cell. It was denied that there was any danger to the health of Ms Moore and other prisoners from the temperature or air quality and its circulation.