swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Prisons - From: 1985 To: 1989
This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Miller v The Queen (1985) 24 DLR (4th) 9
1985
Commonwealth, Prisons, Human Rights
(Canadian Supreme Court) In a case of a prisoner where solitary confinement is unlawfully and unjustly superimposed upon his prison sentence the added solitary confinement can amount to "prison within a prison": it is capable of constituting a material deprivation of residual liberty.
1 Citers
Re McKiernan's Application [1985] NI 385
1985
Northern Ireland, Prisons
The court found difficulty in drawing a logical distinction between the disciplinary functions of governors and Boards of Visitors.
1 Citers
Regina v Deputy Governor of Camphill Prison, Ex parte King [1985] 1 QB 735
1985
Lawton LJ
Prisons
The governor's role in maintaining good order and discipline within the prison was part of his overall function of managing the prison, and is not susceptible to judicial review. 'Management without discipline is a recipe for chaos.'
1 Citers
Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Tarrant and Others; 1985 - [1985] 1 QB 251
In Re Findlay, in re Hogben [1985] AC 318; [1984] 3 WLR 1159; [1984] 3 All ER 801
1985
HL
Scarman, Diplock, Roskill, Brandon, Brightman LL
Administrative, Prisons
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person whose case falls within the scope of the policy is only entitled to have whatever policy is lawfully in place at the relevant time applied to him. A Secretary of State is entitled to change his policy.
It is proper for an authority to adopt a general policy for the exercise of such an administrative discretion, to allow for exceptions from it in "exceptional circumstances" and to leave those circumstances undefined.
Scarman L said: "It is said that the refusal to except them from the new policy was an unlawful act on the part of the Secretary of State in that his decision frustrated their expectation. But what was their legitimate expectation? Given the substance and purpose of the legislative provisions . . the most that a convicted prisoner can legitimately expect is that his case will be examined individually in the light of whatever policy the Secretary of State sees fit to adopt provided always that the adopted policy is a lawful exercise of the discretion conferred upon him by the statute. Any other view would entail the conclusion that the unfettered discretion conferred by the statute upon the minister can in some cases be restricted so as to hamper or even to prevent, changes of policy." and "the Secretary of State has clearly to consider other aspects of the early release of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment. Deterrence, retribution, and public confidence in the system are factors of importance. The Parole Board, through its judicial and other members, can offer advice on these aspects of the question. But neither the board nor the judiciary can be as close, or as sensitive, to public opinion as a minister responsible to Parliament and to the electorate. He has to judge the public acceptability of early release and to determine the policies needed to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Board of Visitors of Gartree Prison, Ex parte Sears Times, 20 March 1985
14 Mar 1985
Prisons, Torts - Other
A prisoner sought damages in respect of cellular confinement and loss of privileges. Held. Mann J. said: "If a person is imprisoned in a place where he is lawfully so imprisoned, then it does not seem to me that a variation in conditions of confinement can constitute the tort of false imprisonment at common law."
1 Citers
Ashingdane v The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-1985 - 8225/78; (1985) 7 EHRR 528; [1985] ECHR 8; 14/1983/70/106; [1985] ECHR 8
McCombe v The United Kingdom 10621/83
12 Nov 1985
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
The Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. (Settlement: the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, save in the presence of the prisoner concerned.)
1 Citers
Regina v Board of Visitors ex parte Lewis [1986] 1 WLR 130
1986
Woolf J
Prisons, Natural Justice
1 Citers
Regina v Board of Visitors of Frankland Prison, Ex parte Lewis [1986] 1 WLR 130
1986
Prisons
Given the role of the Board in discipline within a prison, it can assist the achievement of justice in disciplinary proceedings for the adjudicator to have knowledge of the workings of a particular prison.
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Hickling [1986] 1 FLR 543
1986
CA
Eveleigh LJ
Prisons
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 baby unit, together with the procedures to be followed. It stated that the final decision in a particular case should rest with the governor. The governor could arrange for the removal of the baby if he considered that the mother's behaviour might threaten the serious disruption of the unit or the safety of the baby or other babies in the unit. Held: The instructions laid down the conditions on which the Secretary of State permitted women prisoners to have their babies with them in prison, as contemplated by the relevant rule. Eveleigh LJ stated that it was not a case of the Secretary of State delegating his authority, but of his laying down conditions which must be fulfilled. Since those conditions addressed matters which the governor was best placed to judge, it was right to allow the governor to decide if they were not being complied with.
1 Citers
Regina v Board of Visitors of the Maze Prison, ex Parte Hone; HL 21-Jan-1987 - [1988] AC 379; [1988] 2 WLR 177; [1988] 1 All ER 321; [1987] UKHL 9
Weeks v The United Kingdom Times, 05 March 1987; 9787/82; (1988) 10 EHRR 293; [2008] ECHR 18; [1987] ECHR 3
2 Mar 1987
ECHR
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Prisons
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous. Held: "The court agrees with the Commission and the applicant that the clearly stated purpose for which [the] sentence was imposed, taken together with the particular facts pertaining to the offence for which he was convicted, places the sentence in a special category." In substance, Mr Weeks was being put at the disposal of the state because he needed continued supervision in custody for an unforeseeable length of time and, as a corollary, periodic reassessment in order to ascertain the most appropriate way of dealing with him, and added: "The grounds expressly relied on by the sentencing courts for ordering this form of deprivation of liberty against Mr Weeks are by their very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time, whereas the measure will remain in force for the whole of his life. In this, his sentence differs from a life sentence imposed on a person because of the gravity of the offence." The Parole Board for England and Wales has the necessary independence to constitute a "court" for the purposes of Article 5(4). In considering whether the prisoner should be released, the Board will consider whether the prisoner remains a danger to the public. The freedom enjoyed by a discretionary life sentence prisoner on licence is "more circumscribed in law and more precarious than the freedom enjoyed by the ordinary citizen" but is, nonetheless, a state of liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the Convention.
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
1 Citers
[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
Webster v United Kingdom 12118/86
4 Mar 1987
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
(Commission) An American citizen was detained in England, and eventually deported to France. He complained that there was discrimination against foreign nationals, who did not challenge orders for deportation but sought parole. That was disputed by the Secretary of State, and the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated, but the Commission did consider the jurisdictional issue. It noted that having been sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment the applicant could have been expected to serve that sentence, but the Commission went on to say that: "If a prisoner pre-release scheme were operated in a discriminatory manner, an issue could arise under Article 5 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14."
European Convention on Human Rights 5 14
1 Citers
Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison; HL 1988 - [1988] AC 533; [1988] UKHL 16; [1988] 1 All ER 485; [1988] 2 WLR 290
Weatherall v Canada 1988 1 FC 369
1988
Strayer J
Prisons, Human Rights
(Canada) One of the limitations on a prisoner's rights arising out of his conviction and imprisonment was his subjection to searches necessary for the security and good order of the prison: "Nevertheless, such searches should be subject to some control to ensure that they are truly used for the purposes which justify this infringement of normal human rights. I have concluded that while there is a place for routine skin searches without the need for prior authorization specific to that search, and without the need for showing reasonable and probable cause to suspect the particular inmate searched to be concealing some forbidden item, the circumstances in which such routine searches are authorized should be laid down by Regulation. Such rules will have to be, in themselves, reasonable in identifying situations in which, by reason of probability of, or opportunity for, concealment of contraband, or the need for deterrence of smuggling, a routine strip search is justified in the public interest. As for non-routine searches, I can see no reason why there should not also be some legal rules providing for such situations. There might be, for example, a rule providing that, in case of an immediate and specific security or enforcement problem, a general skin search could be conducted of all or a certain group of inmates. This could arise, for example, where an inmate has been stabbed in a cell block and it is thought necessary to skin search all inmates there for the weapon. But where, apart from such routine or general skin searches, individual inmates are to be skin searched, there should be a rule requiring those conducting the search to have reasonable and probable cause for believing that the inmate in question is concealing some prohibited matter on his person. Where time or circumstances do not permit those conducting non-routine searches to obtain authority from a superior officer, there should be some meaningful requirement of review by such superior officer after the event."
1 Citers
Regina v The Board of Visitors of HMP The Maze ex parte Hone and McCartan [1988] 1 AC 379
1988
Prisons
The question whether a prisoner or young offender is entitled to legal representation at an internal prison adjudication is one for the discretion of the relevant authority.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Boyle and Rice v The United Kingdom Times, 13 May 1988; 9659/82; 9658/82; [1988] ECHR 3
27 Apr 1988
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
The first applicant had been convicted and sentenced for murder and subsequent acts of violence within prison. Whilst in prison he discovered an aptitude for writing and sculpture. Whilst on a special regime he was given certain privileges, but was then transferred to a standard regime pending his release on licence, losing those privileges. He complained that a letter had been stopped on the ground that it might be published. The second applicant also complained aboiut the reading of private correspondence by the prisons. Held: The stopping of the letter did infringe the first applicant's human rights. A claim could be considered by the court even though it had been dismissed by the Commission. The remedies available to him for these breaches were adequate, and the facts of the case disclosed no violation of Article 13 .
European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Weeks v The United Kingdom; ECHR 5-Oct-1988 - (1988) 10 EHRR 293; [1988] ECHR 18; 9787/82
Ryder v United Kingdom 14176/88
19 Jan 1989
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
The Commission considered whether a prisoner whose rule 39 mail had been opened on 3 occasions in a 15 day period with a further letter having gone missing altogether claimed to be a victim of a violation of article 8. Held: Inadmissible. The complainer was not a victim because he had failed to demonstrate any deliberate flouting of his rights. The Commission stated: "The Commission's previous law indicates that the opening of a prisoner's correspondence with his solicitor may raise issues under article 8 of the convention. In the case of McCombe v. The United Kingdom (no. 10621/83, December 11.3.85, to be published in DR) the Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. The Commission also recalls that pursuant to a friendly settlement in that case, the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, save in the presence of the prisoner concerned.
The Commission notes that these instructions appear to have been implemented in the prisons in which the applicant was detained but that various incidents occurred in which letters from his solicitors were nonetheless opened. The Commission further notes that the applicant was able to complain to the governor and the secretary of state concerning these incidents and received various apologies and explanations, which the commission finds to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case. In the absence of any evidence of a deliberate flouting or disregard of the secretary of state's instructions, the Commission finds that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of article 8 of the Convention."
European Convention on Human R
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bezicheri v Italy 11400/85; (1990) 12 EHRR 210; [1989] ECHR 19
25 Oct 1989
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected
1 Citers
[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
