References: [1981] 1 All ER 1211
Coram: Tudor Evans J
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to realise that it was in their own interest to improve their behaviour. He complained that he had not had a fair opportnity to challenge the decision to transfer him.
Held: The decision to transfer the plaintiff to the control unit was an administrative and non-punitive decision taken to relieve the prison system. There is a distinction between disciplinary offences and transfers between status in the need for procedures. In relation to prison regimes that whatever the mischief the authorities aimed to prevent or punish, there was an ‘irreducible minimum, judged by contemporary standards of public morality’ below which standards of treatment should not fall. Tudor Evans J said: ‘it is well established that it is inappropriate to grant declarations which are academic and of no practical value. ‘
This case cites:
- See Also – Williams -v- Home Office (No 2) ([1981] 1 All ER 1151)
Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . . - Cited – Merricks and Another -v- Nott-Bower CA ([1964] 1 All ER 717, [1965] 1 QB 57, [1965] 2 WLR 702)
The plaintiff police officers had been disciplined by transfer in 1957 as a result of a report by an officer who was subsequently discredited. After their accuser was discredited they sought a declaration that the disciplinary action taken against . .
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Williams -v- Home Office (No 2) ([1981] 1 All ER 1151)
Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . . - Cited – Home Office -v- Hariette Harman HL ([1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338, [1982] 1 All ER 532, (1982) 126 SJ 136)
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . . - Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 152 (Admin))
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
