A decision to segregate a prisoner under rule 43 is to be made by the governor of the prison where he is held. Taylor LJ said: ‘Apart from the urgency of decisions under r 43, there may well be other public policy grounds for not giving reasons in advance to the prisoner so as to … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague: CA 5 Jun 1990
A prisoner challenged the decision that he should be segregated under rule 43. Held: Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘In this case Mr Sedley acknowledged that there could not be an unqualified obligation in all cases upon the governor to allow the right to be heard. There may be cases of urgency. We would add that … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: QBD 1990
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to authorise the segregation of a prisoner on his arrival at another prison to … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: HL 24 Jul 1991
The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review. Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; they are subject to the supervision of the courts in their compliance with the rules of natural justice. … Continue reading Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison: HL 1988
The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation. Held: The court identified four issues (1) The Parole Board must assume the prisoner’s guilt of the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield: Admn 25 Mar 1997
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were restrictive. Held: ‘it is true that those applicants who were in custody may have experienced some annoyance and sense of frustration as … Continue reading Silver And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Mar 1983
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was established in three prison officers. In one case the officer opened the letter in front … Continue reading Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal immigrant. Held: The term ‘illegal immigrant’ included anyone entering unlawfully. … Continue reading Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department: HL 10 Feb 1983
ECJ The different language versions of a community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence in the case of divergence between the versions the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part. Any action affecting the right of … Continue reading Regina v Pierre Bouchereau: ECJ 27 Oct 1977
In two cases, long term prisoners who asserted their innocence were in touch with journalists. Challenges were made against conditions imposed on their access that materials obtained during the visits should not be disclosed by the journalists. A third prisoner challenged the inspection of correspondence with his solicitor. The prison governors’ now appealed against rulings … Continue reading Simm’s Application for Judicial Review; O’Brien’s Application for Judicial Review and Main’s Application for Judicial Review: CA 4 Dec 1997
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court. Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject to any legislation altering the situation, a prisoner retains all his rights that are not taken … Continue reading Raymond v Honey: HL 4 Mar 1981
