John Gilligan has failed in his High Court challenge to a decision to detain him in the "bunker" of Portlaoise Prison for two months for an alleged assault on an officer.
Mr Justice McKechnie said Gilligan, who is serving a 28year sentence on drugs charges, did not have an arguable case.
The incident which gave rise to Gilligan's application occurred on March 25th when an assistant chief prison officer alleged Gilligan hit him on the jaw without warning, issued death threats and threatened his family. Witnesses to the assault were another prisoner, Brian Meehan, and another officer.
Gilligan denied assault or that he threatened the prison officer and claimed to his solicitor he had been assaulted by the prison officers. The judge said that allegation was not borne out by the evidence.
Mr Justice McKechnie in a reserved judgment said: "In my view it matters not as to the identity of the applicant. It matters not what has been written about him or what has been said about him or what views people might take of him. These matters are entirely irrelevant to me, as is whether he was convicted or acquitted on all, many or most of the charges before the Special Criminal Court.
"The trial in that court is over and he could be `Joe Bloggs' instead of John Gilligan. It is entirely immaterial to me. His presence in Portlaoise is of relevance only in that he is a prisoner and in lawful detention pursuant to the due process."
The judge said the deputy prison governor, Mr Patrick O'Keeffe, had given evidence that he read the charges to Gilligan but the prisoner made no response and did not acknowledge his presence or the injured officer.
The deputy governor then ordered that Gilligan be confined for 23 hours a day for three days; lose 14 days' remission of his sentence; lose his privileges, including visits, letters, tuck shop and telephone calls, for two months.
The judge said Gilligan had a right to adopt the posture he did. However, the consequences were that he failed to dispute the facts; failed to request any of the documents; failed to call any other witness and failed to say anything in response to the serious allegations. Had Gilligan taken such options, the deputy governor had sworn he would have afforded Gilligan such opportunities.
Mr Justice McKechnie said he had no doubt that fair procedures were applied in relation to the incident of March 25th. He had also been concerned as to whether Gilligan should have been given an opportunity to consult a solicitor. In the circumstances, he could not see how the public good would be served by affording the prisoner a right to consult his solicitor.
The exercise of such a right would involve, of necessity, considerable delay; would involve inability on the governor's part to deal with a breach of discipline there and then, and be highly detrimental to the operation of the prison system.
He would not hold there were no circumstances in which a prisoner would have a right to consult a solicitor.
Mr Justice McKechnie said a convicted person was different from a person untouched by the legal process or a person detained prior to trial. A convicted person must accept discipline and accommodate himself to prison life and understand that prison is a recognised form of punishment. However, there was "no iron curtain" between the Constitution and prisoners. Certain rights remained freely available, such as access to the courts.
Mr Justice McKechnie said it was claimed that being housed in the "bunker" area for two months was a punishment which the deputy governor had added to the prison rules. The governor alleged it was necessary to put Gilligan in this area to implement the penalties imposed.
The judge said it was a matter for the governor to decide what were the most suitable areas to house prisoners, so that he could run the prison in an organised and coherent way.