Category: Prisons

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 20 Jan 2010

When deciding whether a prisoner released on licence should be returned to prison, the question ‘is whether the Secretary of State could reasonably have believed on the material available to him that the claimant had not conducted himself by reference to’ the standard of good behaviour.

Judges:

Judge Pelling QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 369 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Howden, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Admn 15-Oct-2010
The claimant challenged a decision to return him to prison from release on licence. He said that in a non-urgent situation it was wrong for the Secretary of State to accept police intelligence without further enquiries.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401977

Baldauf v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 19 Jan 2010

The claimant challenged two aspects of the defendant’s decision to release him from custody on licence. First, it is said that the claimant should have been released on licence unconditionally and should not have been released on conditional licence. Secondly he challenge dth ecalaculation of th eremaining term of the licence.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ, Lloyd Jones J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 151 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396644

KB, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 13 Jan 2010

The claimant said that whilst he had been detained at a Young Offender Institute, he had been subjected to the Disclipline Incident Reports systems, which he now said was an unlawful interference in his human rights.
Held: As to one system, the challenge failed, but the main challenge succeeded. The defendant suggested that submission to the regime was always by consent, but it remained oppressive as operated at the centre: ‘the DIR system as prescribed in the document and operated at Wetherby is unlawful because (i) it is ultra vires the Act and the rules; (ii) it is actually or potentially arbitrary in the characterisation of offences; and (iii) it lacks minimum essential safeguards for the imposition of punishment.’

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 15 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 47, Young Offender Institution Rules 2000

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392876

Ramirez Sanchez v France: ECHR 27 Jan 2005

The applicant complained that he had been held in solitary confinement for a period of nearly 8 years whilst in prison, and had not been given a remedy.
Held: There had been no breach of article 3 by the confinement, but article 13 had been infringed by the failure to allow him any means to challenge his confinement.

Judges:

CL Rozakis P

Citations:

59450/00, [2005] ECHR 42, (2007) 45 EHRR 49

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 13

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 2-Dec-2010
(Execution of Judgment) Record of satisfaction of judgment against it by the respondent. . .
Appeal from – Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 4-Jul-2006
ramirez_sanchezECHR2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, better known as ‘Carlos the Jackal’, complained that he had been held in solitary confinement for 8 years by the respondent whilst in prison contrary to article 3, and that he had not been given any means of challening . .
Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Cited – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.227645

Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 18 Dec 2009

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision postponing his Parole Board review beyond a time compliant with his right to review, involving an elapse of 21 months.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3336 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384457

RD and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 31 Oct 2008

This case concerns the question whether post-tariff life prisoners who have been transferred by the Secretary of State from prison to a mental health hospital under powers contained in sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 [‘the 1983 Act’] are entitled to Income Support whilst in such a hospital. It is common ground between the parties that the relevant statutory provisions do not entitle post-tariff lifers to Income Support whilst in prison but the Claimant submits that those provisions are couched in terms which dictate the contrary result whilst in a mental health hospital.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2635 (Admin), [2008] MHLR 352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Benefits

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.277927

Regina v Broadmoor Hospital Authority, Ex p S: CA 1998

Routine and random searches may be an incident of therapeutic detention and treatment.

Citations:

[1998] COD 199

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.641225

Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 May 2017

The appellant female prisoner asserted that the much smaller number of probation and bail hostels provided for women prisoners when released on licence was discriminatory in leaving greater numbers of women far removed from their families.
Held: A declaration was granted: ‘The provision of Approved Premises in England and Wales by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 2 of the Offender Management Act 2007 constitutes direct discrimination against women contrary to section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 which is unlawful unless justified under paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act. No such justification has yet been shown by the Secretary of State.’
The Court acknowledged the capacity of separate but equal treatment to be discriminatory and that paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 proceeds on the basis that, subject to the exception there specified, such treatment is unlawful discrimination. Baroness Hale, with whom all the other Justices agreed, said as follows: ‘This brings us, therefore, to paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act . . The history of the United States of America and of the Republic of South Africa, to take the two most obvious examples, has taught us to treat with great suspicion the claim that, if the races are segregated, ‘separate but equal’ facilities can be provided for both, quite apart from the affront to dignity in the assumption that the races have to be kept separate. There have been periods in our own history where segregation of the sexes has led to separate facilities which were very far from equal. Paragraph 26 recognises that there may be good reasons for providing separate facilities for men and women. . . [Paragraph 26 proceeds on the assumption that, without it, the provision of single sex services would be unlawful discrimination. The question, therefore, is whether in this case the discriminatory effect of providing only single sex establishments can be justified.
[Counsel for the claimant] characterises paragraph 26(1) as providing for ‘separate but equal’ facilities for men and women. This permits the provision of separate services for persons of each sex, provided that a joint service for both sexes would be ‘less effective’ and the ‘limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. She characterises paragraph 26(2) as referring to ‘separate and different’ services. It permits providing separate services differently for persons of each sex, provided that a joint service for both services would be ‘less effective’, that ‘the extent to which the service is required by one sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex’, and that the ‘limited provision’ is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. She argues that ‘limited’ must here mean ‘limited by sex’. I agree, because there is nothing else that ‘the limited’ can be referring back to, other than providing separate services for each sex, whether equally or differently.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 40, [2017] WLR(D) 375, [2017] 1 WLR 2093, [2017] 1 WLR 2093, 43 BHRC 65, UKSC 2015/0148

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170221am Video, SC 20170221pm Video

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Griffiths v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 19-Dec-2013
The claimants challenge what is said to be the continuing failure of the Secretary of State for Justice (‘the Secretary of State’) to make adequate provision for so called approved premises to accommodate women released from prison on licence. The . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission HL 1989
At the council’s independent, single-sex grammar schools there were more places available for boys than girls. Consequently the council were obliged to set a higher pass mark for girls than boys in the grammar school entrance examination.
Cited – Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) SC 5-Apr-2017
The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but . .
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Coll v Secretary of State for Justice CA 31-Mar-2015
The appellant was serving a mandatory life sentence for murder. She was being considered for release from custody to ‘Approved Premises’. There were however more such centres for men and the provision for women was unplanned. The results, she said . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice ECJ 1-Mar-2012
1) European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the member states to define the concept of ‘workers who have an employment contract or an employment relationship’ in clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement . . and in particular, to . .
Cited – Bull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School CA 13-Oct-2017
Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life
The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes.
Held: The action was . .
Cited – Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School CA 13-Oct-2017
Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life
The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes.
Held: The action was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Discrimination

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.584229

Griffiths v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 19 Dec 2013

The claimants challenge what is said to be the continuing failure of the Secretary of State for Justice (‘the Secretary of State’) to make adequate provision for so called approved premises to accommodate women released from prison on licence. The claimants are women prisoners approaching the date on which they will be considered for release on licence. There are now only six women’s approved premises in England, none in London, and none in Wales. Thus the claimants are said to face a significant likelihood of being in approved premises many miles from their homes and families, with detrimental effects on their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
Cranston J did declare that the Secretary of State had failed to discharge the public sector equality duty: ‘What is required is that the Secretary of State address possible impacts, assessing whether there is a disadvantage, how significant it is, and what steps might be taken to mitigate it. In the context of advancing equality of opportunity – one aspect of the duty – that means taking the opportunity to see whether more might be done for women, having regard to their particular circumstances. Nothing even approaching this has been done.’

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 136

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Coll v Secretary of State for Justice CA 31-Mar-2015
The appellant was serving a mandatory life sentence for murder. She was being considered for release from custody to ‘Approved Premises’. There were however more such centres for men and the provision for women was unplanned. The results, she said . .
At First Instance – Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 24-May-2017
The appellant female prisoner asserted that the much smaller number of probation and bail hostels provided for women prisoners when released on licence was discriminatory in leaving greater numbers of women far removed from their families.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.519336

Sedrati and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 17 May 2001

The court was asked to consider a policy on the detention on release from prison of foreign national prisoners pending their anticipated deportation. Moses J granted a declaration that the terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the 1971 Act do ‘not create a presumption in favour of detention upon completion of the sentence’.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 418

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.347082

Tarariyeva v Russia: ECHR 14 Dec 2006

A complaint was made that the authorities had failed in their duty to protect a prisoner’s life. The authorities had him in custody for two years and knew of his health problems. He was not properly treated in the penal colony. When he had acute pain, he was diagnosed with a perforated ulcer and peritonitis and transferred to a civilian hospital. The surgery performed there was defective. The civilian hospital authorised his discharge to the prison hospital knowing of post-operative complications requiring further surgery, but withheld crucial details from the prison, which treated him as an ordinary post-operative patient rather than an emergency case. The further surgery was performed too late and the patient died.
Held: The complaint succeeded. The Court examined the individual operational failings of the health care given to prisoners, and not simply whether there were proper systems in place.
The court discussed the general principles applicable to the protection of the right to life: ‘The Court reiterates that . . art.2 . . requires the state not only to refrain from the ‘intentional’ taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. In the context of prisoners, the Court has already emphasised in previous cases that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them. It is incumbent on the state to account for any injuries suffered in custody, which obligation is particularly stringent where the individual dies.
Those obligations apply in the public-health sphere too. The positive obligations require states to make regulations compelling hospitals, whether private or public, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of patients’ lives. They also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, and those responsible made accountable. Furthermore, where a hospital is a public institution, the acts and omissions of its medical staff are capable of engaging the responsibility of the respondent State under the Convention.’

Citations:

4353/03, [2006] ECHR 1096, [2007] Prison LR 270, [2008] Inquest LR 209, (2009) 48 EHRR 26

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Another Admn 26-Jul-2016
The court was aked what article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires of a coroner when a serving prisoner dies of natural causes.
Held: The reuest for judicial review failed. Mr Tyrrell’s death was, from the outset, one which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Coroners

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.248183

Abbott v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Others: PC 12 Jun 1979

Trinidad and Tobago

Citations:

[1979] UKPC 15, [1979] 1 WLR 1342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abbott v The Queen PC 20-Jul-1976
The appellant was charged as a principal in the first degree, and the issue was whether the defence of duress was available. The Board considered the availability of duress as a defence to a criminal charge.
Held: The defence was not open to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.443387

Cox v Ministry of Justice: SC 2 Mar 2016

The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The claimant’s appeal succeeded at the Court of Appeal.
Held: The Minister’s appeal failed. The activities assigned to the prisoners were integral to the activities of the prison in furthering its aims, particular so for the provision of prisoners’ meals. That these aims served also the public interest was not a bar to the imposition of vicarious liability. The prison service placed the prisoners in a position where there was a risk of committing a variety of negligent acts. This was recognised by the provision of health and safety training. The prisoners worked under the direction of prison staff. The claimant had been injured as a result of the prisoner’s negligence in carrying on activities assigned to him, and the prison service was therefore vicariously liable to her.
Reference was made to five incidents of the relationship between employer and employee which had been identified in the Christian Brothers case as usually making it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability, and which could properly give rise to vicarious liability where other relationships had the same incidents and could therefore be treated as akin to employment. They were: (i) the employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability; (ii) the tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer; (iii) the employee’s activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer; (iv) the employer, by employing the employee to carry on the activity will have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee; and (v) the employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer.
The weight to be attached to these various factors will vary according to the context, and ‘The result of this approach is that a relationship other than one of employment is in principle capable of giving rise to vicarious liability where harm is wrongfully done by an individual who carries on activities as an integral part of the business activities carried on by a defendant and for its benefit (rather than his activities being entirely attributable to the conduct of a recognisably independent business of his own or of a third party), and where the commission of the wrongful act is a risk created by the defendant by assigning those activities to the individual in question.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Dyson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] WLR(D) 110, [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] 2 WLR 806, [2016] IRLR 370, [2016] PIQR P8, [2017] 1 All ER 1, [2016] ICR 470, [2016] AC 660, UKSC 2014/0089

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD

Statutes:

Health and Safety Act 1974 48(3), Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At County Court – Cox v Ministry of Justice Misc 3-May-2013
(Swansea County Court) While working as a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the claimant suffered injury in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner who was carrying out paid work under her supervision. She now sought damages from the . .
At CA – Cox v Ministry of Justice CA 19-Feb-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The . .
Cited – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – Turberville v Stampe 1698
A master is responsible for all acts done by his servant in the course of his employment, even though he may have given no particular directions. . .
Cited – Thomas Duncan, Treasurer To The Trustees Of The Perth And Dundee Turnpike Road v James Findlater HL 23-Aug-1839
Trustees appointed under a Public Road Act are not responsible for an injury occasioned by the negligence of the men employed in making or repairing the road.
The funds raised by such Act cannot be charged with compensation for such an injury; . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others CA 10-Oct-2005
Severe flood damage had been caused to a factory, where air-conditioning was being installed, by the negligence of a fitter’s mate; the fitter and his mate had been supplied on a labour only basis by the third defendant to the second defendant to . .
Cited – Bartonshill Coal Company v Jane McGuire, Widow HL 17-Jun-1858
Master’s Liability to the Public for Injury done by a Servant. – Per the Lord Chancellor: A master is liable for any injury or damage done to the public through the negligence or unskilfulness of servants acting in the master’s employ. The reason . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Cited – Central Motors (Glasgow) Ltd v Cessnock Garage and Motor Co 1925
A night watchman at a garage drove off in a car left there for his own purposes and damaged it.
Held: The garage had delegated to their employee the duty of keeping the car safely secured in the garage and they were liable to the owners of the . .
Cited – Broom v Morgan CA 1953
The plaintiff and her husband were employed by the defendant to manage and work in a beer and wine house. The Plaintiff was injured through the negligence of her husband in the course of his employment. In an action by her against the defendant in . .
Cited – Ilkiw v Samuels CA 1963
The plaintiff was injured by the careless manouvering of a lorry by the defendant’s employee.
Held: When considering the vicarious liability of an employer, the proper approach to the nature of the servant’s employment is a broad one. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .
Cited – Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd CA 12-Jan-2022
Explosive Pellet Use Not Within Employee’s Role.
The claimant worked on a site operated by the respondent. One of the respondent’s employees exploded two pellet targets injuring the claimant’s hearing. He asserted vicarious liability in the respondent. There had been tensions between the claimant . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants SC 1-Apr-2020
The Bank had employed a doctor to provide medical assessments as necessary. The doctor had used the opportunities presented to assault sexually many patients. The court was now asked whether the Bank was vicariously liable for the acts of this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Prisons

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.560621

Osborn v The Parole Board: SC 9 Oct 2013

Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on licence but then recalled to custody. The other appeals (Booth and Reilly) were indeterminate sentence prisoners who have served their minimum terms.
Held: The appeals were allowed and a declaration given that the board breached its duty of procedural fairness to the appellant by failing to offer him an oral hearing, and was accordingly in breach of article 5(4) of the Convention.
The prisoners should have been given oral hearings. To comply with common law fairness requirements, an oral hearing should be provided whenever required by the importance of the issue or the particular facts. The circumstances requiring such a hearing cannot be defined. Such a system would satisfy the Human Rights requirements also. When a paper hearig takes place, the result is provisional, and an oral hearing is not an appeal.
Human Rights law is not a distinct area of law, but should be seen to permeat out legal system.
‘Whether a prisoner’s right to a fair hearing requires the holding of an oral hearing does not depend on his establishing that his application for release or transfer stands any particular chance of success: that approach would not allow for the possibility that an oral hearing may be necessary in order for the prisoner to have a fair opportunity of establishing his prospects of success, and thus involves circular reasoning.’
The court considered the rationale of procedural fairness at common law, and emphasised both the instrumental value of enabling persons to participate in decision-making when they may be able to contribute relevant information or to test other information before the decision-maker, and the ethical value of allowing persons to participate in decision-making which concerns them and is liable to have a significant effect on their rights or interests, where they may have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, [2014] HRLR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 374, [2014] 1 All ER 369, UKSC 2011/0147

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD

Statutes:

Parole Board Rules 2004, Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2009, Parole Board Rules 2011, Criminal Justice Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Waite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
At first instance – Osborn v The Parole Board Admn 19-Mar-2010
The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the . .
Appeal from – Osborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of . .
At First Instance – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Apr-2010
The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with . .
At first instance – Reilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 10-May-2010
The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy. . .
Appeal from – Reilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
Cited – The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Cited – Sanchez-Reisse v Switzerland ECHR 21-Oct-1986
That a detainee may be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation can be a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty. Article 5(4)was inspired by the English law of habeas corpus. . .
Cited – Koendjbiharie v The Netherlands ECHR 25-Oct-1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Unsuccessful proceedings brought . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – The King v The Chancellor, Masters And Scholars of The University of Cambridge, Or Doctor Bentley’s Case 1748
Fundamental Right to Present a Defence
Fortescue J said: ‘The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon . .
Cited – Cooper v The Board of Works For The Wandsworth Destrict 21-Apr-1863
Where a land-owner owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board, the Board had, under the 1855 Act, power to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. The plaintiff said that the Board had used that power without . .
Cited – Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board, Ex parte Bradley QBD 1990
A Parole Board should scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable on considering the release of a prisoner, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff. The Board had to carry . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson CA 6-May-1992
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life . .
Cited – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his . .
Cited – Curley v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Mar-2000
A prisoner was sentenced to be detained during her majesty’s pleasure, but given a tariff which expired in 1987. Reviews of his continued detention did not lead to his release. He complained that the system of reviews by a Parole Board whose . .
Cited – HL v United Kingdom ECHR 2004
Lack of Patient Safeguards was Infringement
The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further . .
Cited – Roose v The Parole Board and Another Admn 16-Jul-2010
If representations made in support of the prisoner’s request for an oral hearing raise issues which place in question anything in the provisional decision which may in practice have a significant impact on the prisoner’s future management in prison . .

Cited by:

Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
Cited – Moseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey SC 29-Oct-2014
Consultation requirements
The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate.
Held: The consultation was . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Austin, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales Admn 17-Jan-2022
Parole Board Publication Scheme Unduly Complicated
This claim for judicial review raises important issues about the lawfulness of the Parole Board’s policy and practice in relation to the provision of a summary of a Parole Board decision to victims and victims’ families and the media. The protocol . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.516313

Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Oct 2003

Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry

The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a police investigation and trial where the cell-mate had been convicted of murder, an internal Prisons Service inquiry, and an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality. The coroner had not held an inquest. In none had the full range of issues been explored, or the family been involved in the investigation process. When taking a prisoner, the state assumed a high duty of care toward him and was to be accountable for failures in that care. That required greater involvement in the process than had been given to the family. Although the degree of public involvement might vary, that of the family cannot be minimised. A profound respect for the sanctity of human life underpins the common law as it underpins the jurisprudence under articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The procedural obligation under Article 2 is comprehensively protected under our law. A public enquiry should be held.
Lord Bingham said that an investigation was required: ‘to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their loved ones may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from his death may save the lives of others.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 51, Times 17-Oct-2003, [2003] 3 WLR 1169, Gazette 20-Nov-2003, [2004] 1 AC 653, [2004] UKHRR 75, (2004) 76 BMLR 143, [2003] 4 All ER 1264, [2004] HRLR 3, 15 BHRC 362

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Coroners Act 1988 8(1)(c), European Convention on Human Rights 1 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) v Coroner for West Somersetshire CA 27-Mar-2002
A prisoner had been killed in his cell by a cell-mate known to be unstable and racist. His family sought to be involved in the inquiry into the death within the prison system. A second prisoner hanged himself in his cell. His family alleged that he . .
Cited – McCann and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Oct-1995
Wrong assumptions made by police officers in the killing of terrorists amounted to a human rights breach, despite the existence of danger to the public of an imminent attack. Article 2(1) is ‘one of the most fundamental provisions in the . .
Cited – Salman v Turkey ECHR 27-Jun-2000
Where someone dies or is injured whilst in custody the burden is on the state to provide a ‘satisfactory and convincing explanation’ of what has happened: ‘Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to . .
Cited – Jordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .
Cited – Yasa v Turkey ECHR 2-Sep-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 2 (effective investigation); . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Mar-2002
The deceased, a young man of mixed race, had been placed in a cell with another prisoner who was known to be violent, racist, and mentally unstable. The staff knew that the panic button was defective. The deceased was murdered by his cell-mate. His . .
Cited – Menson v United Kingdom ECHR 6-May-2003
There had been a racist attack. The victim was set on fire and killed in the street by assailants. His relatives sought compensation. However the assailants were not agents of the state and they were duly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. No . .
Cited – Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2001
A serving prisoner suffered a severe asthmatic attack in his cell and died. An inquest was held at which the family of the deceased were present, but unrepresented for want of legal aid. There was no inquiry into the quality of the medical treatment . .
Cited – Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa 24-Mar-1993
Supreme Court of India – The state owes a particular duty to those involuntarily in its custody. ‘There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life’. . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Cited – Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2001
A serving prisoner suffered a severe asthmatic attack in his cell and died. An inquest was held at which the family of the deceased were present, but unrepresented for want of legal aid. There was no inquiry into the quality of the medical treatment . .
Approved – John v Rees and Others; Martin and Another v Davis and Others ChD 1969
The Court was asked as to the validity of proceedings at a meeting of the members of the local Labour Party which had broken up in disorder. The proceedings were instituted by the leader of one faction on behalf of himself and all other members of . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) v Coroner for West Somersetshire CA 27-Mar-2002
A prisoner had been killed in his cell by a cell-mate known to be unstable and racist. His family sought to be involved in the inquiry into the death within the prison system. A second prisoner hanged himself in his cell. His family alleged that he . .
Cited – In re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
Cited – Sacker, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased committed suicide in prison. Her family sought to have added to the verdict the words ‘contributed by neglect’ and complained that the inquest had not provided a full and proper investigation of the death.
Held: The Act needed to . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Cited – Bennett v Officers A and B and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 2-Nov-2004
Police Officers had been involved in a shooting in which a man died. They were granted anonymity before the coroner’s court, on evidence suggesting they might be at risk. The family of the deceased appealed.
Held: The coroner misdirected . .
Cited – D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 28-Apr-2005
D was undergoing trial for offences and was held in prison. He self-harmed repeatedly, and was recorded to require extra vigilance. He attempted to hang himself. Prison staff saved his life, but he was left paraplegic, and was then detained under . .
Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County of Devon and Another Admn 27-May-2005
The local authority in whose care the deceased child had been held challenged a decision by the coroner not to limit his inquiry to the last few days of the child’s life. The coroner had decided that he had an obligation to conduct a wider enquiry . .
Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
Cited – D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Inquest Intervening) CA 28-Feb-2006
The respondent appealed from orders made as to the conduct of an investigation into an attempted suicide in prison. The judge had severely criticised the appellant’s treatment of the case.
Held: The appeal failed. The court recited the . .
Cited – Gentle and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v the Prime Minister and others Admn 20-Dec-2005
The applicants sought leave to bring judicial review of the decisions which led to the invasion of Iraq. They were relatives of servicemen who had died there.
Held: The court’s only duty at this stage was to ask whether there was an arguable . .
Cited – Scholes, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Jan-2006
The deceased had committed suicide whilst in a Young Offenders Institute. The coroner had called for a further enquiry into the way he had been sentenced. The Home Office refused a public enquiry saying that the coroner’s inquest had satisfied its . .
Cited – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Pounder, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for the North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington and others Admn 22-Jan-2009
The deceased died aged 14 in a Secure Training Centre by hanging. He had complained of his treatment and restraint methods used. The mother sought judicial review of the conduct of the inquest, wanting the coroner not to have ruled on the legality . .
Cited – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 16-May-2008
The complainant’s brother had been arrested for being drunk. After a time in a cell, he was found unwell and fell into a coma. Complaints were made of his treatment. The Police Complaints Commission was to investigate the events after the arrest . .
Cited – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission and Another CA 22-Oct-2008
The court was asked to consider whether the IPCC could investigate the circumstances leading to the arrest of a suspect who fell into a coma after being arrested for being drunk. The IPCC appealed, saying that it did not have jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Applied – P, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Justice CA 6-Jul-2009
P appealed against the refusal of a judicial review of a decision by the respondent not to hold an enquiry into the circumstances of P’s detention in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution.
Held: The appeal failed. Before such an enquiry became . .
Cited – Morrison v The Independent Police Complaints Commission and Others Admn 26-Oct-2009
The claimant made a complaint of a serious assault by the police, by the use of a Taser. The defendant had referred the complaint to the IPCC, who said that they should investigate it themselves. The claimant said that to accord with his human . .
Cited – P, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The District of Avon CA 18-Dec-2009
The deceased was found hanging in her prison cell. The jury returned a verdict of accidental death, not being satisfied that she was not merely making a cry for help. The family appealed a finding that the inquest had satisfied the requirement for a . .
Cited – Mousa and Others v Secretary of State for Defence and Another Admn 16-Jul-2010
The claimants sought judicial review of the respondent in respect of alleged mistreatment when detained in Iraq. They sought a judicial inquiry. . .
Cited – Mousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
Cited – AM and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 17-Mar-2009
The claimants complained of their detention after the disorder at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre.
Held: The investigation of allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment related to those in the custody of the State, though it was . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Cited – Birks, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 25-Sep-2014
The claimant police officer sought judicial review of a decision to continue his suspension. He had been investigated and cleared after a death in custody. He sought to join the Church of England Ministry and was offered a post. He was re-assured . .
Cited – MR, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 10-Mar-2017
The claimant challenged the use of the Royal Prerogative to withdraw his passport. He had as a youth been involved with a terrorist organisation, but said that he now regretted that and was no longer so involved. He had sought to set up a business, . .
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Administrative, Human Rights, Coroners

Leading Case

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.186836

Potter for Judicial Review of Acts and Decisions of the Scottish Prison Service: OHCS 20 Mar 2007

The prisoner complained that the prison arranged that outgoing telephone calls from the prison should be preceded by a message which said the call was being made from a prison.
Held: There was no lawful authority for the message. The prison rules allowed rules to be made for the purposes of the regulation, management or discipline of prisons. This rule was not for these purposes, and the impingement on the claimants human rights went beyond what might be necessary for such purposes. It was a breach of the prisoners article 8.2 rights and ultra vires at common law.

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2007, [2007] ScotCS CSOH – 56, 2007 SLT 1019

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8.2

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.252862

Soar, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 20 Feb 2015

Challenge to adjudication review decision of the Defendant’s National Offender Management Service upholding a finding of guilt against the Claimant whilst he was a prisoner at HMP Full Sutton.

Judges:

Ophili Mott QC DHCJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 392 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.543094

Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: Admn 28 Oct 2009

Burton J dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the serving prisoner, to challenge his statutory disfranchisement from voting in domestic and European Parliamentary elections.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2923 (Admin), [2010] HRLR 6, [2010] UKHRR 317, [2010] ACD 28

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 8, European Convention on Human Rights P1-3, Human Rights Act 1998 4

Cited by:

Cited – Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Dec-2010
The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on . .
At First Instance – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Elections

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381463

JL, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Justice: Admn 7 Oct 2009

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2416 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Mousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376141

Matthews, Regina (On the Application of) v HMP Swaleside: Admn 5 Oct 2009

The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision to refuse to allow the Claimant to submit a Tutor Marked Assessment (TMA) to the Open University

Judges:

William Davis QC HHJ

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2397 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Education, Human Rights

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376016

Bayliss, Regina (On the Application of) v Parole Board: CA 22 Jul 2009

The prisoner, subject to a term of imprsonment for public protection, and had completed thr tariff period. He now challenged the decision of the Board not to direct his relase and or transfer to open conditions.
Held: The appeal failed. The test for release from IPP mirrored the test for imposition of a sentence of IPP.

Judges:

Arden, Dysin, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1016

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 225, Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Bayliss, Regina (on the Application of) v the Parole Board and Another Admn 13-Nov-2008
The prisoner who had been made subject to an Imprisonment for Public Protection order had completed his tariff, and now challenged the decision of the respondent Board to order neither his release nor a transfer to an open prison.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375975

Robert W Greens v The United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Aug 2009

Citations:

60041/08, [2009] ECHR 1274

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Greens v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 12-Sep-2007
The defendant appealed against his sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment for a violent rape. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
See Also – Greens and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review SCS 12-May-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375432

Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Jun 2009

The prisoner complained that the prison had monitored his conversations and communications with his doctor.
Held: The actions were a violation of the prisoner’s article 8 rights.

Judges:

L Garlicki, P and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, P. Hirvela, L. Bianku and N. Vucinic, Deputy Section Registrar F. Araci

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 845, Times 17-Jun-2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom ECHR 22-Feb-2008
. .
At administrative court – Szuluk, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Full Sutton Admn 20-Feb-2004
The prisoner was receiving long term health treatment, and objected that his correspondence with the doctor was being read. He was held as a category B prisoner but in a prison also holding category A prisoners, whose mail would be read. The prison . .
At Court of Appeal – Regina on the Application of Szuluk v The Governor of HMP Full Sutton and the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Oct-2004
Right of prison to read correspondence with doctor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374724

Gichura v Home Office and Another: CA 20 May 2008

The claimant sought damages after his treatment as a disabled person whilst held in immigration detention centres. The court dismissed his claim on the basis of Amin.
Held: The application of the Amin case was too simplistic. The various services provided at the detention centre were only to some extent purely governmental. A disabled person detained in an immigration detention centre was entitled to claim that he had been discriminated against in the provision of services under section 19. Those services which were not should come under the 1995 Act.
Buxton LJ said: ‘The broad view of what counts in these terms as provision of a service is important because it is important that the disability and other discrimination legislation does apply in circumstances which it is natural to think it should apply. I do not think that it is conceivably right to say now that Parliament intended this very important legislation not to apply in circumstances such as the detention centre with which we are concerned with, detention in police custody or detention in prison. Some of the functions that were performed there are purely governmental, like, as is conceded in this case, the administrative handling of the detainee on his arrival. But once he is there he is as a detainee a member of a section of the public. He is provided with what are in truth services and there is no reason either in the Act or in the authorities to which I have referred to exclude those services from the ambit of the Act’.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Buxton LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 697, Times 04-Jun-2008, [2008] ICR 1287

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay, Ex parte Amin HL 1983
The House was asked whether the grant of special vouchers under the special voucher scheme introduced came within section 29 of the 1975 Act. Acts performed pursuant to a government function did not come within the meaning of service. Discrimination . .
Cited – Savjani v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1981
The question arose as whether the Inland Revenue were concerned with the provision of services in their activities relating to the adminsitration of the taxation system, so as to bring them within section 20 of the 1976 Act.
Held: They were . .
Cited – Farah v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis CA 9-Oct-1996
Individual officers, but not the police force itself are answerable in a race discrimination claim. The force is not vicariously liable for an individual officer’s acts. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gill, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 26-Feb-2010
Failure to provide programme discriminated
The claimant prisoner who had a learning disability said that he had been unable to complete the offending behaviour programmes because of his disability, that he had been kept in prison for much longer than he should have been as a consequence, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.270558

Banks v United Kingdom: ECHR 6 Feb 2007

The applicants complained of maltreatment by prison officers in breach of article 3. The matter had been investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service which had decided not to prosecute. Civil proceedings had been raised and settled. The applicants contended that, even after all that, an independent public inquiry should be held, since it was the only means of ensuring compliance with the article 3 procedural obligation.
Held: The application was declared manifestly ill-founded because, although reliance was placed on a procedural obligation arising under Article 3, there was no complaint of a substantive violation.
The court explained the difference between the procedural obligations under articles 2 nd 3: ‘Procedural obligations have been implied in varying contexts under the Convention, where this has been perceived as necessary to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the Convention are not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective. Such obligations requiring an effective investigation into allegations of unlawful use of force and serious ill-treatment have been interpreted as arising under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention respectively . . The Court would emphasise that these obligations are not identical either in content or as regards their applicability. In the context of Article 2 of the Convention, the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of the unlawful use of force attracts particular stringency in situations where the victim is deceased and the only persons with knowledge of the circumstances are officers of the State. It is important, with a view to ensuring respect for the rule of law and confidence of the public, that the facts, and any unlawfulness, are properly and swiftly established. In the context of Article 3, where the victim of any alleged ill-treatment is, generally, able to act on his own behalf and give evidence as to what occurred, there is a different emphasis and . . since Article 13 of the Convention requires an effective remedy to be provided for arguable breaches of Article 3, it will not always be necessary, or appropriate, to examine the procedural complaints under the latter provision. The procedural limb of Article 3 principally comes into play where the Court is unable to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, deriving, at least in part, from the failure of the authorities to react effectively to such complaints at the relevant time’

Citations:

21387/05, [2007] ECHR 177, (2007) 45 EHRR SE2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Gentle, Regina (on the Application of) and Another v The Prime Minister and Another HL 9-Apr-2008
The appellants were mothers of two servicemen who had died whilst on active service in Iraq. They appealed refusal to grant a public inquiry. There had already been coroners inquests. They said that Article 2 had been infringed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .
Cited – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Cited – Morrison v The Independent Police Complaints Commission and Others Admn 26-Oct-2009
The claimant made a complaint of a serious assault by the police, by the use of a Taser. The defendant had referred the complaint to the IPCC, who said that they should investigate it themselves. The claimant said that to accord with his human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.249251

Rex v Halliday – Ex Parte Zadig: HL 1 May 1917

War – Statute – Defence of Realm – Internment – Naturalised British Subject Interned under Regulation 14B Made under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act 1914 (5 Geo. V, cap. 8), sec. 1 (1) – Validity of the Regulation.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Lord Finlay), Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1917] UKHL 662, 54 SLR 662

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.631006

McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland: SC 11 Apr 2017

A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking indoors, but rather as to the ban on smoking in the grounds and on home visits, which, by creating a comprehensive ban, prevented detained patients from smoking anywhere.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. The respondent had not considered the principle that their actions should represent the minimum interference with a restrained person’s freedoms necessary to achieve the intended purpose. The absolute prohibition on having tobacco products and the related powers to search and confiscate were illegal and were nullified.
‘The Board did not purport to act under the 2003 Act in instituting the policy of prohibiting the possession of tobacco products, searching for such products and confiscating them. It may be the case that the consultation exercises which the Board carried out during 2011 were sufficient to comply with the obligations in section 1(2) and (3) of the 2003 Act. But there appears to have been no consideration of the obligation under section 1(4) nor compliance with the obligations to inform and record in the 2005 Regulations. This is not surprising as the Board considered that it was acting under the 1978 Act.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 31, [2017] 1 WLR 1455, 2017 GWD 12-169, 2017 SLT 451, [2017] 4 All ER 449, (2017) 156 BMLR 35, [2017] WLR(D) 268, UKSC 2015/0135

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Outer House – CM, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Aug-2013
(Outer House) The prisoner, held in a high security psychiatric hospital, challenged the outright ban on smoking.
Held: The Lord Ordinary declared that the impugned decision was unlawful so far as it affected Mr McCann both because it was not . .
Extra Div Inner House – SN v Secretary of State for The Home Department SCS 14-Jan-2014
Extra Division, Inner House – . .
Appeal From – Reclaiming Motion Charles McCann v The State Hospital Board for Scotland SCS 12-Aug-2014
Inner House – The house considered a reclaiming motion (appeal) as to the lawfulness of a decision by the respondents to prohibit smoking and the possession of tobacco in the buildings and grounds of the State Hospital, Carstairs. The Board . .
Cited – Lyons, Re Judicial Review SCS 2-Feb-2011
The petitioner was a detained patient, subject to both a compulsion and restriction orders. He objected to a policy restricting visitors from bringing food parcels, and restricting ordering food from outside.
Held: Lady Dorrian held that the . .
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Admn 20-May-2008
The applicants were detained at Rampton. The form of detention denied the access to space in which they would be able to smoke cigarettes to comply with the law.
Held: The claim failed. The legislative objectives were sufficiently serious to . .
Cited – Munjaz v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jul-2012
The applicant was detained in a secure mental hospital. He complained that he had been held in seclusion.
Held: The complaints under articles 5 and 8 were admissible, but there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights in these . .
Cited – Bruggeman and Scheuten v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 12-Jul-1977
(Commission) The applicants complained at restrictions on the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
Held: Article 8(1) secures to the individual a sphere within which he can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his personality. He . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – Niemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Broadmoor Hospital Authority, Ex p S CA 1998
Routine and random searches may be an incident of therapeutic detention and treatment. . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.581645

Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods were taken lawfully.
Held: The segregation was not authorised by the applicable legislation: ‘rule 45 . . (1) enables the governor to ‘arrange’ for the prisoner’s removal from association. Paragraph (2) provides that a prisoner shall not be removed under the rule for a period of more than 72 hours ‘without the authority of the Secretary of State’, and that ‘authority given under this paragraph shall be for a period not exceeding 14 days’. Authority is therefore given under rule 45(2) by the Secretary of State to the governor, the governor having already formed the view that continued segregation is desirable. That provision cannot sensibly be construed either as enabling the governor to give authority to himself, or as enabling authority to be given to him by a subordinate officer.’ and ‘ it is implicit in rule 45(2) that the decision of the Secretary of State cannot be taken on his behalf by the governor, or by some other officer of the prison in question.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 54, [2015] 3 WLR 457, [2016] AC 384, UKSC 2013/0230

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Prison Rules 1999 45(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first Instance – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 18-Feb-2011
The prisoner claimants each challenged the way that decisions had been taken which had led to their being held in segregation units. They said the procedures were unfair.
Held: The applications were dismissed. Article 3 was not engaged. . .
Appeal from – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
Cited – Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts CA 1949
The council sought to exercise its powers under the Act to take possession of part of the defendant’s property.
Held: Denning LJ said: ‘It is necessary to consider the nature of the power to requisition land. It is only a power to take . .
Cited – Castle v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Jan-2014
The defendant appealed from his conviction for having driven in excess of a variable speed limit on the motorway. He said that the Order under which the speed limit had been imposed was irregular. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Oladehinde HL 18-Oct-1990
A decision at Senior Executive Officer level was accepted as appropriate in a deportation case. There was an express form of delegation, and acts of the immigration officers required to be regarded as the acts of the Home Secretary.
Lord . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Sherwin (a Patient By Her Next Friend Sherwin) Admn 16-Feb-1996
An official in the Benefits Agency, part of the Department of Health and Social Security, suspended an income support/severe disability premium payable to the appellant. The court was asked whether the decision of the Agency, made under the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP CA 21-Dec-2004
The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to . .
Cited – Payne v Lord Harris of Greewich CA 1981
A prisoner sought a declaration that he was entitled to be given the reasons for refusing him parole so that he could make representations in rebuttal.
Held: The declaration was refused.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘No doubt it is the duty of . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Walsh HL 1984
Walsh faced two sets of charges. In one of which he was bailed and in the other he was remanded in custody. The Governor of the prison refused to produce him to the court for the purpose of facing the bailed proceedings.
Held: Habeas corpus . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Hickling CA 1986
Rules enabled the Secretary of State to permit a woman prisoner to have her baby with her in prison, subject to any conditions he thought fit. The Secretary of State had issued a general instruction laying down criteria for admission to a mother and . .
Cited – Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison HL 1988
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; . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague CA 5-Jun-1990
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Ganci v Italie ECHR 30-Oct-2003
The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by . .
Cited – Tsfayo v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Nov-2006
The applicant challenged the prodecures for deciding her appeal against the council’s refusal to pay backdated housing benefits. She complained that the availability of judicial review of the decision was not adequate.
Held: The system did not . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR 20-May-2008
The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights . .
Cited – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Cited – Castle v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Jan-2014
The defendant appealed from his conviction for having driven in excess of a variable speed limit on the motorway. He said that the Order under which the speed limit had been imposed was irregular. . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
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 . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The claimant complained that as a prisoner he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the decisions refusing his requests for prison leave.
Held: The complaint was . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.550793

Reclaiming Motion Charles McCann v The State Hospital Board for Scotland: SCS 12 Aug 2014

Inner House – The house considered a reclaiming motion (appeal) as to the lawfulness of a decision by the respondents to prohibit smoking and the possession of tobacco in the buildings and grounds of the State Hospital, Carstairs. The Board submitted that the 2003 Act principles did not apply to the impugned decision, that Mr McCann’s article 8 right to respect for his private life was not engaged, or, if it was, the impugned decision was a proportionate one which did not infringe his article 8 right.
Held: The Lord Justice Clerk with whom Lord Brodie agreed, allowed the appeal and refused the prayer of the petition. The Board was exercising its powers of management under the 1978 Act when it made the impugned decision. The 2003 Act was concerned with the care and treatment of the individual patient and the impugned decision did not involve the discharge of a function under that Act. Accordingly, the 2003 Act principles had no application to the decision.

Judges:

Lord Carloway Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Paton, Lord Brodie

Citations:

2015 SC 112, [2014] ScotCS CSIH – 71, 2014 SCLR 817

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Outer House – CM, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Aug-2013
(Outer House) The prisoner, held in a high security psychiatric hospital, challenged the outright ban on smoking.
Held: The Lord Ordinary declared that the impugned decision was unlawful so far as it affected Mr McCann both because it was not . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.535837

Messina v Italy: ECHR 1999

The removal of a prisoner from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or degrading punishment. It is an essential part of a prisoner’s right to respect for family life that the prison authorities should assist him in maintaining contact with his family.

Citations:

ECHR 2000-X, 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V, [2000] ECHR 438, [2000] ECHR 440

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.186478

McFeeley and others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 May 1980

(Commission) The claimants had been convicted of terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland and were serving prisoners in HMP The Maze. They protested at a change of regime imposed in 1976, resulting in them not being permitted association with the rest of the prison community. Prisoners complained at ‘close body’ searches, including anal inspections, which were carried out routinely on occasions where dangerous objects had in the past been found concealed in the recta of protesting prisoners.
Held: In assessing whether security measures in a prison may fall within the ambit of Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned. ‘The Commission has taken into consideration the exceptional circumstances in the Maze Prison, in particular the dangerous objects that have been found concealed in the recta of protesting prisoners (such as razor blades, flints, matches, cigarette lighters); the fact that, in the past, protesting prisoners have used such objects for disruptive purposes (e.g., to burn the perspex shields used for window coverings); the serious risk that concealed letters might identify prison officers as potential assassination targets.’ and ‘While there can be no doubt that many prisoners find such procedures humiliating, the Commission is of the opinion that in the circumstances the level of mental or physical suffering is not such as to amount to inhuman treatment. Similarly, it does not consider that the degree of debasement or humiliation involved, particularly in respect of prisoners who must be aware by reason of their campaign of the substantial security threat posed, reaches the level of severity required for it to amount to degrading treatment.’

Citations:

8317/78, [1981] 3 EHRR 161, [1984] ECHR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Bary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.186479

Moohan and Black Gillon v The Lord Advocate: SCS 2 Jul 2014

Inner House – Challenge to denial to prisoners of right to vote in forthcoming independence referendum. They said it was contrary to Human Rights and European Law.
Held: The House refused a reclaiming motion by the petitioners.

Judges:

Lady Paton

Citations:

[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Moohan, Re Judicial Review SCS 19-Dec-2013
Outer House – the petitioners, each convicted serving prisoners, complained of the blanket ban on them voting in the referendum on Scottish Independence.
Held: The petition was refused. The Act was not a breach of the petitioners’ rights under . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Elections, Constitutional

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.534155

Moohan, Re Judicial Review: SCS 19 Dec 2013

Outer House – the petitioners, each convicted serving prisoners, complained of the blanket ban on them voting in the referendum on Scottish Independence.
Held: The petition was refused. The Act was not a breach of the petitioners’ rights under European law: ‘by enacting the Franchise Act, the Scottish Parliament is not exercising competence in the sphere of nationality. It is not purporting to make a decision about EU membership or EU citizenship. The process which it is putting in place by the independence referendum is not a process which will have any direct impact on the question of EU membership or EU citizenship.’

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 199, 2014 GWD 3-55, 2014 SLT 213

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 3

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Moohan and Black Gillon v The Lord Advocate SCS 2-Jul-2014
Inner House – Challenge to denial to prisoners of right to vote in forthcoming independence referendum. They said it was contrary to Human Rights and European Law.
Held: The House refused a reclaiming motion by the petitioners. . .
At Outer House – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Elections, Human Rights, European

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.519745

CM, Re Judicial Review: SCS 27 Aug 2013

(Outer House) The prisoner, held in a high security psychiatric hospital, challenged the outright ban on smoking.
Held: The Lord Ordinary declared that the impugned decision was unlawful so far as it affected Mr McCann both because it was not taken in accordance with the 2003 Act principles and also because it breached his Convention rights under articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR. The Lord Ordinary did not award damages but ruled that the finding of the breach of those articles was ‘just satisfaction’ in terms of article 41 of the ECHR.

Judges:

Lord Stewart

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Outer House – Reclaiming Motion Charles McCann v The State Hospital Board for Scotland SCS 12-Aug-2014
Inner House – The house considered a reclaiming motion (appeal) as to the lawfulness of a decision by the respondents to prohibit smoking and the possession of tobacco in the buildings and grounds of the State Hospital, Carstairs. The Board . .
Outer House – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.515113

Munjaz v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Jul 2012

The applicant was detained in a secure mental hospital. He complained that he had been held in seclusion.
Held: The complaints under articles 5 and 8 were admissible, but there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights in these circumstances.
The Court (a) emphasised the principle of personal autonomy in article 8, (b) ruled that detained persons were presumed to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR, except the right to liberty, where the detention was lawfully imposed in accordance with article 5 of the ECHR and (c) required any restriction of those rights to be justified in each individual case.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

2913/06 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1704, [2012] MHLR 351

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 5 8 14

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

First case – Regina v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust, ex parte Munjaz 10-Oct-2000
The claimant was detained iin a secure mental hospital. He complained of being held in seclusion for a long period, and as to the hospital’s policy.
Held: The hospital’s policy, by reducing the frequency of review of a patient’s seclusion . .
Second Case – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) Admn 5-Jul-2002
The court dismissed the claimant’s complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under . .
At Court of Appeal – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
At House of Lords – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Cited – C Munjaz v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Mar-2008
The applicant complained of his seclusion whilst being detaned at a secure mental hospital.
Held: The court referred several questions back to the parties to be answered. . .

Cited by:

Cited – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.464361

Lyons, Re Judicial Review: SCS 2 Feb 2011

The petitioner was a detained patient, subject to both a compulsion and restriction orders. He objected to a policy restricting visitors from bringing food parcels, and restricting ordering food from outside.
Held: Lady Dorrian held that the Board had failed to consult with patients (as it had conceded it was required to do by section 1 of the 2003 Act) on its decision to ban visitors from bringing food parcels into the State Hospital and to ban patients from ordering in food

Judges:

Lady Dorrian

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 21, 2011 GWD 4-120, [2011] CSOH 21, 2011 SLT 233

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 1, National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 102(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.428691

Hamza and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 5 Oct 2012

‘Each of the five claimants is the subject of an extradition request issued by the Government of the United States of America in order that each of them may stand trial in that country for terrorism related offences. Each has brought separate claims for judicial review and for stays of their extradition, raising different issues in each case, except for an issue common to four of them relating to the prison conditions they would experience at ADX Florence, Colorado.’

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P QBD

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2736 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.465462

Vefa Serdar v Turkey: ECHR 27 Jan 2015

Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained in particular the use of disproportionate force against him and abuse during and after the riot operation launched in Canakkale prison.
He also argued that the criminal proceedings in this regard against members of the security forces had disregarded the need for speed and fairness enshrined in Article 6-1 and 3 b) and that, contrary to Article 13 had not received effective way of law to argue their grievances.

Judges:

Guido Raimondi, P

Citations:

7309/04 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.541942

Potter and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 30 Nov 2001

Four prisoners challenged the refusal to grant them enhanced status under the prison’s Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme. Each maintained a denial of guilt and so was not eligible for a treatment programme.
Held: The applications failed. There is nothing intrinsically unfair, unreasonable or irrational in requiring a prisoner, as part of the sentence planning process, to apply for and if successful undertake, a course designed to reduce the risks of his re-offending. That is so even if the offender maintains his innocence of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted and eligibility for the course in question requires the offender to admit guilt. There is nothing intrinsically unfair, unreasonable or irrational in declining to grant such a prisoner enhanced status if he refuses to apply for and/or undertake such a course.
Moses J said: ‘There is, to my mind, nothing unfair or inappropriate in requiring a sex offender, guilty of serious sexual offences as these claimants were, to attend an SOTP, even if he denies he is guilty of those offences. It is a key purpose of imprisonment to encourage constructive behaviour by a prisoner and thereby reduce the risk of his reoffending and increase protection of the public. It is, therefore, fair and rational to encourage participation in a course which may reduce risk of reoffending by means of the schemes for providing an incentive to attend such a course and granting privileges to those who undertake such courses.
Prison management is entitled to operate the IEPS and the court is entitled to proceed on the basis that a prisoner, once convicted, is guilty of the offences that form the subject matter of those convictions. A prisoner is not entitled to rely merely upon his assertions of innocence to excuse himself from confronting his offences. Were it otherwise, the system of rewarding those who are prepared to confront their offences would be undermined. One who denies his offence should not reap the same rewards as one who is prepared to admit and confront them.
It can hardly be supposed that one who at first denies his sexual offences should straightaway be excused attendance on an SOTP. But if he persists in his denial, at what stage is it to be said that the denial is so entrenched that it is inappropriate to expect him to attend such a course? The question whether his denial is a good reason for non-attendance will depend upon the individual circumstances of the particular prisoner.
Those circumstances are considered in the process of sentence planning, as the facts of these particular claimants demonstrate. Sentence planning lies at the heart of the IEPS (see, e.g., paragraph 39, IG74 and 1.9.1 of 4000). Prisoners are encouraged to achieve the targets set in the individual process of sentence planning by the IEPS. It is through that process that that which can be reasonably required of a prisoner is ascertained . .’

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1041

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 47(1), Prison Rules 1999 8(1)

Citing:

Cited – 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
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.

Cited by:

Cited – Cannan v HMP Full Sutton Admn 29-Jun-2009
The prisoner challenged his re-assessment for a status of ‘standard’ within a scheme operated by the prison allocating privileges according to behaviour. He maintained denial of guilt for the offences for which had been convicted and so was unable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347289

Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 9 Dec 2015

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for discrimination when under the 1952 Act, there was a requirement to appoint a member as pastor of the prison a Clergyman of the Church of England, and other chaplains, including himself, an imam, were paid less.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. It was not enough to show that the length of service criterion had a disparate impact upon Muslim chaplains. It was also necessary to show that the reason for that disparate impact was something peculiar to the protected characteristic in question.
Underhill LJ said: ‘I do not agree that if it is shown, as it is here, that the use of the criterion leads to a disparity in the pay of Muslim and Christian chaplains, the enquiry under section 19 (2) (b) must end at that point. In my view it was and is open to the Respondent to go behind the bare fact that Muslim and Christian chaplains have different lengths of service and seek to establish the reason why that was so. What has been established in this case – indeed it was never in dispute – is that the reason for the difference is that there was no need for employed Muslim chaplains prior to 2002[6]. That being so, I do not believe that it can properly be said that it is the use of the length of service criterion which puts Muslim chaplains at a disadvantage, within the meaning of section 19 (2) (b). The concept of ‘putting’ persons at a disadvantage is causal, and, as in any legal analysis of causation, it is necessary to distinguish the legally relevant cause or causes from other factors in the situation. In my view the only material cause of the disparity in remuneration relied on by the Claimant is the (on average) more recent start-dates of the Muslim chaplains. But that does not reflect any characteristic peculiar to them as Muslims: rather, it reflects the fact that there was no need for their services (as employees) at any earlier date.’

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Lewison, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1264, [2016] ICR 289, [2016] IRLR 118, [2015] WLR(D) 517

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 7, Equality Act 2010 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice EAT 15-Jan-2014
EAT Race Discrimination : Indirect – RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Until 2002 the only Chaplains employed by the Prison Service were Christians. Since then, Chaplains of other faiths have been . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) SC 5-Apr-2017
The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.556791

Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 13 May 2009

Judges:

Arden, Elias LJJ, Richards J

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 373, (2008) 103 BMLR 28, [2009] ACD 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 9-May-2008
Challenge by elderly prisoner with cancer to be handcuffed whilst attending hospital. He was in prison for a violent sexual offence, and whilst in prison had not engaged in offending reducing programs. . .

Cited by:

Cited – FGP v Serco Plc and Another Admn 5-Jul-2012
The claimant said that whilst he had been being taken from an immigration detention centre to hospital, he had been restrained by various forms of handcuffs. He said that had been unlawful.
Held: The claim failed: ‘ the recommendation that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.343053

Dennis Andrew Nilsen v United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Nov 2008

Citations:

36882/05, [2008] ECHR 1664

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Nilsen v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicant had been convicted of the most serious offences including several violent murders, and was held under a whole life tarriff. He wished to publish his autobiography from prison.
Held: The application was inadmissible. He had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Media

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341276

Hirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2): ECHR 30 Mar 2004

(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and disproportionate. Different signatory countries had applied different standards. The UK law made a great distinction between different categories of offender or crime, but did not apply the same rules to prisoners on remand or imprisoned for non-payment of fines or contempt. There was no evidence of the issues having been considered by parliament in a way which took account of the issues of human rights.

Citations:

74025/01, Times 08-Apr-2004, (2004) 38 EHRR 825, [2004] ECHR 122

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights A3-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General QBD 17-Apr-2001
A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .
At Commission – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
At Commission – Hirst v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Dec-2009
(Resolutions) The court noted the long delay in the respondent in implementing the judgment of the court and giving prisoners voting rights, the present consultation and adjourned until March 2011 for further information. . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.195514

Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 22 Mar 2002

The applicant, a prisoner challenged the uniform ban on contact by prisoners with the media by telephone, arguing that it infringed his Article 10 rights.
Held: Restricting telephone contact with the media was not part of imprisonment. A democratic society need not seek to prevent prisoners from expressing their views directly to the media about grievances or concerns they had about issues affecting them. The policy insofar as it was imposed universally was unlawful.

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2002, Gazette 10-May-2002, [2002] EWHC 602 (Admin), [2002] 1 WLR 2929

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Service Order 4400 6.10, European Convention on Human Rights Art 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.172192

Hirst v United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Jul 2001

The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays were unacceptable. The article required not only a speedy conclusion, but, where an automatic repeated review was involved, those reviews must be at proper intervals. The time must be set for each separate case, and there were substantial differences between cases, and such differences might include consideration of developments and changes in mental health which might require longer periods to be assessed, and there was some flexibility to bring forward reviews, but that option was not open to the prisoner. The period was unreasonable and the case had not been decided speedily.
The court repeated the statement it had made in Oldham, and also stated in terms that ‘The court does not find that any loss of liberty may be regarded as flowing from the finding of a breach of article 5(4), which in this case is limited to the delay in between reviews’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Judges:

Costa Pres, Louciades, Kuris, Tulkens, Jungwiert, Bratza Greve JJ

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-2001, 40787/98, [2001] ECHR 477, [2001] ECHR 481

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 5.4

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Confirmed – Oldham v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2000
Where a parole board took two years to consider the applicant’s parole, this was unreasonable, and a breach of the Article 5.4 requirement to deal with such matters speedily. Accordingly the continued detention of the applicant became unlawful. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Murray v The Parole Board Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2003
The applicant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had twice previously been released on licence and had his licence revoked. His tarriff had expired The period between reviews of his detention had been two years, but . .
Cited – Wilson v Wychavon District Council and Another Admn 20-Dec-2005
The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.159490

A v United Kingdom: ECHR 1980

The Commission declared admissible a complaint from a Broadmoor patient who had been secluded for five weeks after a fire. A friendly settlement was reached, without admission of liability but on the basis that new guidelines for the use of seclusion would be issued, as indeed they were.

Citations:

(1980) 3 EHRR 131

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health, Prisons

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185209

Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another: ChD 28 Feb 2003

On reception into prison, the prison took cash from the claimant which was returned on his release. He claimed that it should have been invested.
Held: The credit of the receipt into the books of the prison created only a debt as between the prison and prisoner. No trust was created. What was taken was cash, and cash was returned. He had not been deprived of his property, and there was no rule against him making a request for the money to be paid into an interest bearing account. The right against interruption of the right to peaceful enjoyment had not been infringed.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Times 25-Mar-2003, Gazette 09-May-2003, [2003] 2 All ER 678

Statutes:

Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) 43(3), European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another CA 10-Feb-2004
The prisoner had money removed and kept for him on entry to prison. Upon release he claimed that the money had been held in trust, and should have been invested for some return. He appealed a finding that the money had been held simply as a debt . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Duggan v Governor of Full Sutton Prison and Another CA 10-Feb-2004
The prisoner had money removed and kept for him on entry to prison. Upon release he claimed that the money had been held in trust, and should have been invested for some return. He appealed a finding that the money had been held simply as a debt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.180382

Bayliss, Regina (on the Application of) v the Parole Board and Another: Admn 13 Nov 2008

The prisoner who had been made subject to an Imprisonment for Public Protection order had completed his tariff, and now challenged the decision of the respondent Board to order neither his release nor a transfer to an open prison.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3127 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 225

Cited by:

Appeal From – Bayliss, Regina (On the Application of) v Parole Board CA 22-Jul-2009
The prisoner, subject to a term of imprsonment for public protection, and had completed thr tariff period. He now challenged the decision of the Board not to direct his relase and or transfer to open conditions.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278990

Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another: CA 17 Oct 2008

The prisoner disputed the calculation of the date when she would become entitled to consideration for early release under a Home Detention Curfew. The Secretary of State appealed against a decision that his policy guidance was unlawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Where several offences were imposed at the same time, those sentences under one year should be governed by the provisions of the 1991 Act, and those for longer periods by the 2003 Act.
Though the Secretary of State had had no jurisdiction to issue such a guidance, in fact the guidance did reflect the position at law.
Scott Baker LJ set out the calculation method: ‘Assuming the judge has said no more than that one sentence is to be consecutive to another, it is necessary to construe in a common sense way what section 154 direction the judge is to be taken to have given as to when the second sentence should commence. It seems to me obvious that the second sentence starts at the point at which release from the first sentence would otherwise occur as of right ie the conditional release date of the first sentence. The other theoretical options are unrealistic. The judge could not intend the second sentence to start when there is merely the possibility of release on a discretionary basis from the first sentence and the direction might or might not be exercised in the prisoner’s favour. Nor could the judge intend the second sentence to start only at the sentence expiry date of the first sentence because the consequences would be that the prisoner would be released on licence from the first sentence and later recalled to start serving the second sentence. Accordingly, the second sentence begins, by virtue of the section 154 direction, at the conditional release date of the first sentence and the prisoner is to be treated as eligible for release on HDC and/or release on licence in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable to the second sentence. Those provisions will be those of the 1991 Act where the second sentence is less than 12 months and those of the 2003 Act where the second sentence is 12 months or more.’

Judges:

Clarke MR, Scott Barker LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1097, [2009] 1 WLR 1321, [2009] 1 All ER 494

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement Order Number 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No 950)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another Admn 31-Jan-2008
The court considered the complications created when the schemes for providing early release of short term prisoners had not been implemented, but the new Act impacted in the previous arrangements anyway as regards those sentenced to consecutive . .

Cited by:

Cited – Round and Dunn v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2009
Non-consolidation of sentence to debar home curfew
Each defendant had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment under the 1991 and 2003 Acts. One was above and one below twelve months. They complained that the result of trying to reconcile the statutory provisions was that they had . .
Appeal from – Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another SC 30-Jun-2010
The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276975

Lee and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 25 Jul 2008

The defendants appealed sentences imposed as indeterminate for public protection. Moses LJ said: ‘the position of a prisoner whose level of dangerousness cannot be ascertained is the same as one who ceases to be a danger. The original justification for the sentence, namely his dangerousness, has ceased to exist’.’

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2326 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276982

Renolde v France: ECHR 16 Oct 2008

A prisoner with mental health problems committed suicide during pre-trial detention. It was said that the state had infringed his article 2 right.
Held: The court noted the vulnerability of persons in custody, especially those who were mentally ill, and re-affirmed the duty of state authorities to protect such persons. In relation to the operational obligation, the court stated: ‘However, such an obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources.’

Citations:

5608/05, [2008] ECHR 1085, (2009) 48 EHRR 42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-2010
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide after being given home leave on a secure ward by the respondent mental hospital. A claim in negligence had been settled, but the parents now appealed refusal of their claim that the hospital had failed . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276966

Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another: CA 14 Oct 2008

The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that the prosecutor who presented the case against him were not sufficiently independent.
Held: ‘there is no general requirement under Article 6(1) of prosecutorial independence and impartiality and I see no basis for finding such a requirement to exist in the prison disciplinary context. If a lack of prosecutorial independence or impartiality is said to have affected the prosecutor’s conduct or to have had some other effect on the proceedings, that can be taken into account in determining on the particular facts whether the overall requirement of a fair hearing under Article 6(1) has been met. ‘

Judges:

Richards LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1089

Links:

Bailii, Times

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .
Cited – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Oct-2003
The applicants were prisoners subject to disciplinary proceedings. The offences were equivalent to criminal charges in domestic law. They were refused legal assistance, and had additional terms added to their sentences.
Held: The charges . .
Appeal from – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and others Admn 20-Dec-2007
The claimant prisoner complained that the obligation imposed on him to submit to drugs tests was unlawful. . .
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited – Regina v Stow CMAC 10-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction by a naval court-martial. He said that the court-martial was in breach of Article 6 because the naval Prosecuting Authority officer lacked sufficient independence and impartiality, when judged objectively, to . .
Cited – Morris v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Feb-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to general structure of court martial system; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to specific complaints; No violation of Art. . .
Cited – Cooper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction)
The claimant had been dismissed from the RAF after a court martial. He complained that the tribunal was not independent, and that his trial was unfair.
Cited – Grieves v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had been dismissed from the Royal Navy after a court martial. He . .
Cited – Huber v Switzerland ECHR 23-Oct-1990
It was a breach of Article 5 where the judicial power was exercised by a District Attorney whose impartiality was ‘capable of appearing open to doubt’ by reason of his entitlement to intervene in the subsequent criminal proceedings as a . .
Cited – Padovani v Italy ECHR 26-Feb-1993
Hudoc The Court considered the compatibility with Article 6(1) of a magistrate’s dual function of investigation and judgment.
Held: The summary investigative measures carried out by the magistrate in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276841

Kats and Others v Ukraine: ECHR 14 Mar 2006

Citations:

29971/04, [2006] ECHR 1201

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Kats and Others v Ukraine ECHR 18-Dec-2008
The applicants were the parents and son of a prisoner who died in custody of an HIV related illness. They complained of her treatment in custody.
Held: If someone dies in custody an explanation of the cause of death must be provided, including . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272865