A policy for housing transgender prisoners in Northern Ireland is now in place and working, the High Court heard on Tuesday.
Counsel for the Department of Justice argued that high-level meetings took place to ensure proper arrangements are in place for those held in custody.
But lawyers representing a transgender woman confirmed they are still pursuing a legal challenge amid claims she spent more than a week in a male prison.
Michelle James, 63, was arrested last month and initially detained at HMP Maghaberry on charges of threatening to kill her neighbour.
The retired chef, of Main Road in Cloughey, Co Down, allegedly declared an intention to stab the man amid ongoing issues between them.
She mounted an emergency application for a writ of habeas corpus to be transferred to Northern Ireland’s female prison.
Those proceedings ended after the move to Hydebank Wood was facilitated just before Christmas.
James was then granted bail to return to her home address the following day.
She is pressing ahead with a separate judicial review challenge against the department over its handling and implementation of a policy for transgender individuals in custody.
Ronan Lavery KC, representing James, told the court he wanted more time to consider notification received yesterday about arrangements in place.
He argued that the ongoing legal challenge was about whether there is an adequate policy in Northern Ireland which meets the same standards as other parts of the UK.
“The prisoner spent eight days in a male prison,” counsel stressed.
“There is also an issue about whether she was treated lawfully when she was in prison.”
But Laura McMahon KC, for the Department, argued that James was initially taken to Maghaberry based on a court committal.
Her arrival there triggered an information-gathering process involving a health trust and a case conference at “a very high level” within the prison service.
It was also claimed that James had indicated she was happy with the accommodation provided to her.
With the accused no longer in prison, Ms McMahon disputed any justification in pressing ahead with the challenge.
“There is nothing to see here,” she submitted.
“The application was about the absence of a policy. There clearly is one and this is an example of it working.”
Earlier, Mr Justice McAlinden suggested it may be “ridiculous” to spend more public funds on the legal challenge.
However, he agreed to adjourn the case for two weeks to give James’ representatives time to consider all correspondence.
The judge added: “If a leave hearing is required, a leave hearing will be granted.”