An incident at Oberstown children’s detention centre last August, in which a number of young people got on to the roof, was the “most serious” at the unit in north Dublin for some 20 years, the High Court has been told. Four young males are suing the State claiming their human rights were breached arising from their treatment following that incident.
They claim they were unlawfully kept in “de facto solitary confinement” in locked rooms for “unjustifiable” periods in breach of their rights and of Oberstown’s own separation policy providing for no separation beyond three days.
Their actions, against the director of Oberstown and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission involved as an assistant to the court on legal issues, are being heard by Ms Justice Una Ní Raifeartaigh. All four are seeking declarations that their rights were breached, plus damages. Two youths are aged 16, one is 17 and the fourth turned 18 after the case was initiated. None can be named by order of the court.
In documents before the court, the director of Oberstown pleaded the incident on August 29th-30th last was the most serious at the centre since 1998. It has created significant fear among staff and was followed by industrial action.
The four youths were not detained in solitary confinement “or anything like it” and there was no breach of their rights or their human dignity, it was pleaded. Water was turned off to avoid potential flooding of rooms and flammable materials were removed, it was stated.
After the August 29-30th incidents, it is claimed the four were held in locked rooms without any form of stimulation – whether via TV, books, magazines, exercise, family visits or phone calls – for periods of several days. It is alleged they were given food by staff via a hatch in the door to the rooms and ate alone.
They initiated court proceedings in the first week of September over their treatment. In further arguments on Thursday, Patrick Gageby SC, for two of the youths, said international agency and expert reports showed clear dislike of solitary confinement, particularly for children. If this treatment could not be done as punishment, it was hard to see how it could be justified as behavioural management and Oberstown could not “immunise” itself by calling it that, he argued.
John Finlay SC, for another youth, said Oberstown’s director was in control of a detained child as if they were their parent or guardian and could take all reasonable steps to promote their safety and welfare. The court should not require a lesser standard from the director than from a prison governor in relation to recognition of the constitutionally protected rights of children.
His client was locked up from August 29th, Mr Finlay added. On September 6th, he was taken from the room to attend court and saw his solicitor on September 8th. During that time, his client spent 24 hours day lying on his bed or being talked at through the hatch.
This was “not a humane regime for a 17-year-old” and it was “most inhumane and degrading” to have literally nothing to do, no exercise or stimulation, eating alone at all relevant times and no exercise until September 9th, when he got 30 minutes. He had no visits until September 14th and no family calls until September 8th, after which there were some changes in his regime and he got an MP3 player, Mr Finlay said.
The case continues.
