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 that the defendant should have made appropriate adjustments. It was accepted that his reading skills and IQ level were below the levels required to participate in the programmes. Prison policies stated that facilities were available to all, including prisoners with disabilities.
Held: The claim succeeded. It was acknowledged that he needed to complete the courses but also that suitable courses were not available to him. It was demonstrated that the respondent had neither made reasonable adjustments nor even considered how they might be made.
Cranston J said: ‘steps should have been taken so that he could be provided with some type of offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate, eventually, his safety for release. Other steps have been taken, and assistance provided, but nothing comparable to offending behaviour work. It is clear to me that this failure cannot be justified. In the circumstances of this claimant’s case the Secretary of State has unlawfully breached the statutory duty imposed on him to take steps so that his practices, policies and procedures do not discriminate against this intellectually disabled prisoner.’
Judges:
Cranston J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 364 (Admin), (2010) 13 CCL Rep 193
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 49A, Prison Act 1952
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Alexander v Home Office CA 1988
Prisoners are a section of the public for the purposes of the 1976 Act. The Court increased an award for injury to feelings awarded for race discrimination by prison officers from pounds 50 to pounds 500. The court considered the appropriate level . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Lunt, Regina (On the Application of) vLiverpool City Council and Another Admn 31-Jul-2009
Blake J endorsed a six step approach which a public authority will need to address in relation to its duty to make adjustments to avoid indirectly discriminating: ‘1. Did the [public authority] have a practice policy or procedure?
2. Did that . .
Cited – Brown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 18-Dec-2008
Having ‘due regard’ is not Obligation to do
The claimant sought to challenge the decision to close her local post office on the basis that being retired and disabled and without a car in a rural area, the office was essential and the decision unsupportable. In particular she challenged the . .
Cited – AM, Regina (on The Application of) v The City Council and Another Admn 2-Mar-2009
The question under section 49A is whether the relevant public body has in substance incorporated the thought processes required. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Cited – EC Gransden and Co Ltd and Falkbridge Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1985
If a decision maker intends to depart from any relevant policy, he must give clear reasons for doing so, in order that the person affected should know why the decision was being made as an exception to the policy and the grounds upon which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Discrimination
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.401862