Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.

An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.

A ‘DANGEROUS AND volatile’ prisoner serving a life sentence for murder has lost an appeal against a High Court ruling that Mountjoy Prison had acted appropriately in placing the double killer in solitary confinement.

In the Court of Appeal ruling, Justice John Edwards has ruled that the appeal by Stephen Penrose must be dismissed, commenting that there “is not a scintilla of evidence” suggestive of bias or of “cover up” by the High Court judge, Justice Anthony Barr to “belatedly legitimise” Penrose’s detention at the prison’s Challenging Behaviour Unit (CBU).

Stephen Penrose (42), formerly of Newtown Court, Malahide, Coolock, Dublin 17 was sentenced to life in prison in December 2021 for the ‘gruesome’ murder of Philip Finnegan in August 2016.

He was previously convicted of the manslaughter of David Sharkey, who was stabbed in Navan on 17 May 2009.

In his ruling dismissing Penrose’s appeal against Justice Barr’s January 2025 High Court ruling, Justice Edwards found that there was no error on the part of the High Court judge in ruling that the evidence did not support Penrose’s claim that his rights were breached so as to entitle him to all or any of the reliefs claimed by him by way of judicial review.

Penrose’s High Court proceedings concerned an action against the governor of Mountjoy Prison, the Irish Prison Service (IPS) and the Department of Justice over the authorities’ decision to place him in the Challenging Behaviour Unit (CBU), commonly referred to as solitary confinement.

The IPS said that Penrose was in the unit as a result of threats he made against staff and disciplinary sanctions imposed on him.

As part of his appeal, Penrose, who represented himself, submitted handwritten submissions, running to 115 A4 pages.

In his 29-page written judgment, Justice Edwards records that Mountjoy prison Governor David Treacy told the High Court that Penrose had 130 P19 prison discipline reports against him, of which 73 related to his period in detention either on remand in relation to the murder charge or subsequent to his conviction.

Treacy told the court that these included assaults on both prisoners and prison staff, including using weapons, scalding with boiling water, and throwing faeces and urine; threats to staff; lewd behaviour; indecent exposure; possession of offensive weapons and damage to prison property.

In one instance in October 2021, Penrose engaged in a “dirty protest”, which involved smearing excrement on himself and on the cell walls while in another, Penrose was found to have breached discipline when found storing excrement.

Prison authorities also told the High Court of other breaches of discipline committed by Penrose, including threatening to place a bounty on the prison governor’s head and deliberately exposing himself to a female prison officer.

Counsel for the IPS, the Mountjoy Governor and Dept of Justice told Mr Justice Edwards stated that the High Court judge accepted as accurate the Mountjoy Governor, David Treacy’s characterisation of Penrose as being a “dangerous and volatile prisoner”.

At the three-day High Court hearing and Court of Appeal hearing, Penrose represented himself and cross-examined Mountjoy Governor, David Treacy over two days in the High Court.

In his judgment, the judge says that at the High Court hearing, Penrose asked Treacy if he believed him to be the “most dangerous violent prisoner in the prisoner system” and Treacy replied: “Well from my experience of dealing with you, you are a Rule 63 protection prisoner but you are prone to violence, violent outbursts, threatening abusive to staff, threatening behaviour to staff, lewd acts to our staff.”

Treacy told Penrose, “You are a weapon storer. You’ve been found with contraband on a number of occasions. Your last four P19s, two of them are for threatening an officer’s life and two for damaging cells. So I would class you as extremely volatile and dangerous, yes.”

The judge said that Treacy had been adamant that the periods spent by Penrose in the CBU were due to his challenging behaviour, that placing him in the CBU was not done to punish the appellant, or for conducting “mind games” or subjecting him to “mental torture”, but rather in the interests of providing for the good order and maintenance of safety of staff and other prisoners within the prison

In his findings, the judge said an appeal court is obliged by law to treat the primary findings of fact made by the trial judge as being unassailable, providing there was credible evidence to support them.

“I consider that there was abundant such evidence to support them,” commenting that the evidence advanced by Penrose in the High Court was long on assertion and short, indeed devoid, of proof of that which was being asserted by him.

To embed this post, copy the code below on your site