Prisoner on hunger strike, but Irish Court says he can't be named. Why?

"Neither the prisoner nor the prison he is incarcerated can be identified by the media by order of the court."

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/01/04/prisoner-on-hunger-strike-is-refusing-medication-high-court-told/

When in 1981 ten prisoners in the North decided to take the ultimate decision to starve themselves to death because of their grievance, their names were well publicised.

In today's Irish Times, a prison governor is reporting a similar issue and an Irish court puts a gagging order on naming the person. Why?

As Fergus Kelly pointed out in his seminal Early Irish Law, the hunger strike has been a way for the weak to bring attention to abuses of power for some 2,000 years. To highlight their plight and bring public attention to it.

If somebody feels so aggrieved with the legal system that they're willing to take their own life then perhaps it's time for the public to be able to Learn what's going on?

Aside from being callous, an Irish court putting an order for censorship of this citizen's case is a sign of weakness by the judiciary. Let the public see if the man has a case. Who is judging the judges?

Peregrinus

The proceedings were brought by the prison governor, not by the prisoner. Decisions about refusing medical treatment, etc, are very personal and in litigation over them the people concerned are normally not named, so as to protect their right to privacy. This is standard, and it has nothing to do with weakness on the part of the judiciary. You don't lose your right to privacy concerning your medical affairs merely because you are a prisoner.

Orders of this kind don't prevent people from naming themselves, if they wish, or (in this case) from being named by their families. There was never anything to prevent this man's family from going to the media and telling them that he was on hunger strike, and outlining his grievances. That hasn't happened. It also doesn't appear that the prisoner concerned objected to the no-naming order.

It may be that he is not seeking publicity. That could be a tactical decision on his part; he is already serving "a lengthy custodial sentence handed down to him . . . after he admitted several serious offences" and he has "other similar charges pending against him". He may think that he's not somebody likely to garner much public sympathy, and his protest techniques may not involve seeking public support or even public attention.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Possibly because he has another case upcoming?

coylemj

When in 1981 ten prisoners in the North decided to take the ultimate decision to starve themselves to death because of their grievance, their names were well publicised.

It would hardly have been worth their while going on hunger strike in 1981 without massive publicity. This was achieved by staggering the start of the individual hunger strikes and the start of each hunger strike was accompanied by a SF press release. When protest marches in support of the hunger strikers were held in Dublin, Belfast etc., the head of each parade involved a line of protestors, each one holding a poster of one of the hunger strikers. A lot of the hunger strikers also stood as candidates in elections north and south and several of them were elected.

As Peregrinus has stated above, there is nothing to stop the current individual or his supporters from naming him in the regular (press & TV) media, on social media or anywhere else.