Mr Justice Heslin delivered a ruling in the High Court on 5 March 2025 on an application made by the Governor of a prison (the “Applicant”) against A (the “Respondent”).
The application sought orders to permit the transfer of the Respondent, who is detained, to a hospital to preserve his right to life through the provision of food and liquid. The Respondent had expressed a wish to refuse all forms of nourishment. Further orders were sought to permit the administration of clinical and medical treatment to the Respondent.
The ruling outlines that granting these orders would significantly interfere with the Respondent's autonomy. Mr Justice Heslin highlighted that the policy in the Irish Prison Service respects a prisoner's decision to refuse nourishment, provided the individual has the capacity to make such a decision.
The Respondent's physical health was acknowledged, and his condition was described as very grave. Assessments completed indicated risks of irreversible organ damage and sudden death. Mr Justice Heslin emphasised the urgency of the situation. The Court was satisfied that the Respondent lacked the required capacity to make decisions regarding his immediate treatment, care, health, nourishment, and welfare needs. The ruling described the State's decision to bring this application as entirely appropriate given that the Respondent is in the care of the State.
The Court found that the Applicant is entitled and required to take proportionate and necessary steps to preserve the Respondent's rights. The ruling also stated that the Respondent is in immediate need of an appropriate regime for the provision of nourishment, food, fluids, and medical services. Orders were granted to transfer the Respondent to a hospital or clinic for necessary nourishment and medical treatment to preserve his right to life.
The orders granted will remain in force only as long as necessary to preserve the Respondent's right to life or pending further order of the Court. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the Respondent.
Mr Justice Heslin acknowledged that the orders were made with the intention of preserving life, and given their nature, they significantly trespass on autonomy. The ruling highlights the balancing of constitutional rights that are present in this situation; in this instance, the right to life took precedence over the right to autonomy due to the lack of evidence of capacity.
Click here to read the full judgment.