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 recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, acknowledged that serving prisoners have a right to enjoy association with their fellow inmates; that that right is a ‘civil right’ within the meaning of Article 6; and that decisions of a Governor or SRB to interfere with it by authorising or continuing cellular confinement on segregation are ‘determinations’ of it.
Held: In practice the complaint was that there is an implied right of a prisoner of association with other prisoners which amounts to a ‘civil right’? The appeals were dismissed. The segregations did not infringe the claimants’ article 6 rights.
As to Article 6, Elias J said: ‘the decision-making processes within the prison and the role of the SRB provide a satisfactory framework for professional and evaluative judgments with the safeguard of judicial review. Accordingly, if Article 6 is engaged, I consider that, notwithstanding the absence of the elements of independence and impartiality in the Article 6 sense within the prison, the procedure as a whole is Article 6 compliant on a ‘full jurisdiction’ basis.’
Maurice Kay LJ VP, Lloyd, Elias LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 376, [2012] HRLR 17, [2012] WLR(D) 102, [2012] 4 All ER 44, [2012] 1 WLR 3602
Bailii, WLRD
Prison Rules 45, Prisons Act 1952, Euriopean Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 13-Oct-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
Appeal from – 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. . .
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 – 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 . .
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 – 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 – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic . .
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 – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR 6-Apr-2010
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . .
Cited – X v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Dec-1979
(Commission – Plenary) – Inadmissible – article 6 inapplicable. The categorisation of a prisoner is ‘administrative’ rather than a determination of disputes about civil rights. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Cited – In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) HL 14-Mar-2002
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act is not available where the suggested interpretation is contrary to express statutory words or is by implication necessarily contradicted by the statute. The judge’s task is to interpret, not to legislate. The proposed . .
Cited – 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 – Secretary of State for The Home Department, Regina (on The Application of) v BC and Another Admn 11-Nov-2009
The applicants were subject to control orders. They were ‘light touch’, not involving a deprivation of liberty. . .
Cited – 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 – Hassan v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 27-May-2011
The claimant prisoner complained that his confinement to a segregation unit had been unlawful.
Held: A period of segregation in HMP Full Sutton for some seven weeks ‘did not interfere with the claimant’s Article 8 rights as a prisoner . .
Cited – Graham, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 2-Apr-2004
The applicant sought judicial review of his cellular confinement after being found to have assaulted a prison guard.
Held: Weatherup J said: ‘the loss of association or loss of privileges as a consequence of a prison adjudication do not . .
Cited – Corden, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 9-Jul-2004
On his return to the Young Offenders Institution, the applicant was found with positive indications of contact with drugs, and he was removed from association. He complained that his human rights had been infringed, contending that the ‘right’ in . .
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: . .
Cited – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
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 – Secretary of State for The Foreign Office and Commonwealth Affairs v Maftah CA 13-Apr-2011
The Secretary of State appealed against an order granting judicial review of his decision to place the claimants on a list of those associated with terrorist organisations. They had been placed on the list without being given opportunity to make . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
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 – Bryan v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-1995
Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that . .
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 – North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corporation CA 14-Mar-2002
The parties had been involved in an arbitration. The claimant sought leave to appeal. The judge refused to give leave, but did not say exactly why.
Held: Human Rights law required a right of appeal. That right could only be exercised properly . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
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 – 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 by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.452366