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: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 41 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHRR 1399; [2001] EWHC Admin 520; [2001] LLR (Med) 478
2001
Admn
Jackson J
Human Rights, Prisons
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 the deceased had received in prison, but the responsible medical officer had been suspended from duty and had previously been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. In an action against the Home Secretary liability was admitted, thus precluding forensic investigation of the case. The family sought judicial review on the grounds, among others, of a failure to protect the life of the deceased and a failure of the procedural obligation arising under article 2 of the Convention to investigate the circumstances of the death. Held: An investigation, to satisfy article 2, must have certain features, being independent, effective, reasonably prompt, with sufficient public scrutiny, and the next of kin must be involved to an appropriate extent. "Where the victim has died and it is arguable that there has been a breach of article 2, the investigation should have the general features identified by the court in Jordan v United Kingdom at paras 106-109". On the facts that there had been no effective official investigation into the death of the deceased and held that there should be an independent investigation, to be held in public, at which the family should be represented.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department; Admn 16-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 110
N v Governor of HMP Dartmoor [2001] EWHC Admin 93
16 Feb 2001
Admn
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Cummings; CA 22-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 45
Greenfield v Secretary of State for Home Department Times, 06 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 129; [2001] 1 WLR 1731
22 Feb 2001
Admn
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Prisons, Human Rights
Disciplinary proceedings within a prison were not criminal charges so as to bring into play the provisions of the Human Rights Act, even though they could result in an extension of the time which would be served by the prisoner. Such proceedings would not carry with them the stigma of a full criminal conviction, and it is necessary to ensure consistency throughout the convention countries as to the application of article 6.1. The risk of serving additional days followed from the original deprivation of liberty.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 42(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Delroy Clayton Wesley Thompson v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 331
8 Mar 2001
CA
Prisons, Personal Injury
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 22 March 2001; Gazette, 03 May 2001; [2001] Prison Law Reports 147; [2001] EWCA Civ 378
8 Mar 2001
CA
Lord Woolf C.J
Judicial Review, Criminal Sentencing, Prisons
The prisoner had been re-categorised and transferred to a higher category prison. Held: A life sentence serving prisoner, who had served the tariff period, and was moving into the period of discretionary detention, was entitled to be informed of a change of his category, and the reasons for it, and be given opportunity to make representations about it. This would not prevent a move for operational reasons not involving such a change in category. Such a change of category would significantly affect his chances of release. Lord Woolf: "I have found the question of what should be the outcome of this appeal by no means easy to determine. I accept the importance of the prison service being able to make decisions which are operationally important without having to go through the technical requirements of providing opportunities for making representations. However, the rules of fairness and natural justice are flexible and not static; they are capable of developing not only in relation to the expectations of contemporary society, but also to meet proper operational requirements. The ability of the prison service to meet both their operational needs and the needs for prisoners to be treated fairly can usually be achieved within the panoply of the requirements of fairness. On the whole, the courts will require considerable persuasion that administrative convenience justifies a departure from the principles of fairness which would otherwise be appropriate in a particular situation. However, the arguments which are advanced by the Home Office in this case, as I understand them, are not only ones of administrative convenience. They refer to operational difficulties and operational problems which could undermine the security and discipline within the prison system.
It seems to me basic that a decision which is as important as the present decision to Mr Hirst should not be taken without giving him the opportunity to make representations and to have the matter properly considered as a consequence of his so doing. I think that there is some substance, but would not overvalue it, in the problem referred to by Lord Justice Simon Brown which arise in reconsidering a decision [paragraph 58 above]. However, regardless of that difficulty, it seems to me that a decision of this nature as a matter of fairness should not be taken until Mr Hirst had been fully involved. He should have been given a reasonable period to make representations before the decision was taken. He should have been given that opportunity after he had been told the grounds upon which it was appropriate to recategorise him.'"
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor Gazette, 01 June 2001; Times, 01 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 472; [2002] QB 13; [2001] 3 WLR 533; [2001] 2 FLR 1158; (2001) 59 BMLR 1; [2001] 2 FCR 153; [2001] HRLR 38; [2001] Fam Law 736
4 Apr 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Peter Gibson LJ, Latham LJ
Human Rights, Administrative, Family, Prisons
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the interference with the prisoner's rights was proportionate, a refusal to provide the additional facilities which would be necessary was not an infringement of article 12, and nor was the policy unlawful or irrational.
Lord Phillips MR said: "Penal sanctions are imposed, in part, to exact retribution for wrongdoing. If there were no system of penal sanctions, members of the public would be likely to take the law into their own hands. In my judgment it is legitimate to have regard to public perception when considering the characteristic of a penal system."
European Convention on Human Rights Art 12
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo; CACD 6-Apr-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 1025/6
John Stewart for Judicial Review of Continued Detention of Petitioner In Saughton Prison [2001] ScotCS 89
11 Apr 2001
SCS
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Marnoch and Lord Morison
Scotland, Prisons
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General; QBD 17-Apr-2001 - Times, 17 April 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 239
Saxena v HM Prison Service [2001] EWCA Civ 640
24 Apr 2001
CA
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Saxena, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Service [2001] EWCA Civ 752
16 May 2001
CA
Long,ore J
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Zinzuwadia v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 842
17 May 2001
CA
Prisons, Professional Negligence
[ Bailii ]
Sedrati and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 418
17 May 2001
Admn
Moses J
Immigration, Prisons
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".
Immigration Act 1971
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 23-May-2001 - Times, 25 May 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] 3 All ER 433; [2001] 1 AC 532; [2001] 2 WLR 1622; [2001] UKHL 26
Matthewson v The Scottish Ministers; OHCS 10-Jun-2001 - Times, 24 October 2001
Mcmanus, Regina (on the Application Of) v Head of Assisted Prison Visits [2001] EWCA Civ 966
15 Jun 2001
CA
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Pearson and Another v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 927
18 Jun 2001
CA
Simon Brown LJ VP
Human Rights, Prisons, Constitutional, Elections
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their complaint that as serving prisoners they were unable to vote.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1)
[ Bailii ]
Wright and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 520
20 Jun 2001
Admn
Jackson J
Prisons, Human Rights
The claimant's alleged that the respondents' medical treatment of the deceased whilst in prison had been so poor to infringe his human rights.
European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
Robert Napier v the Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] ScotCS 162
26 Jun 2001
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights
Detention in prison facilities where the applicant was confined to a shared cell for substantial parts of the day without integral toilet facilities was an infringement of the claimant's human rights under article 3.
[ Bailii ]
Pet v the Scottish Ministers [2001] ScotCS 169
28 Jun 2001
SCS
Lord Reed
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Price v United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Jul-2001 - Times, 13 August 2001; 33394/96; [2001] ECHR 453; [2001] ECHR 458; [2011] ECHR 2270
Regina (M (a Minor)) v Commissioner of Police; Regina (La Rose) v Same Times, 17 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 553
13 Jul 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Poole
Human Rights, Prisons
The applicants sought orders that their human rights had been infringed by the conditions of their detention at police stations. One asserted that he had not had opportunity to speak to his solicitor on the phone in private, and the other complained that the arrangements did not guarantee privacy. The court rejected the claims on the basis that the deprivation of the right was either theoretical in one case or illusory in the other. There was no evidence of actual interference with the prisoners human rights. Human Rights jurisprudence had suggested that there was no need to demonstrate actual prejudice, but the UK Act required the court to establish a municipal jurisprudence of human rights. Our common law rights are not lessened or weakened by being re-shaped to fit the facts of particular cases. The rights under the Act and Convention had always to be read in the particular context.
European Convention on Human Rights - Human Rights Act 1998 2
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Carroll and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Greenfield) v Same; CA 19-Jul-2001 - Times, 16 August 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 545
Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] 1 WLR 545; [2001] EWCA Civ 1224; [2001] HRLR 58
19 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Woolf CJ, Tuckey and Arden LJJ
Prisons, Administrative
Two appellants were prisoners at a high security prison. A search involved the prisoner squatting so that items which might be hidden in their genital or anal areas could be seen. The appellants refused to squat. Both were charged with refusing to obey a lawful order. The charges were found proved by the deputy governor, who imposed a penalty of two additional days on one of the men together with various other penalties, and penalties not involving additional days on the second man. The second man was a lifer; the first was not. The Secretary of State upheld the decisions and judicial review was refused. Held: The Court dismissed the appeals.
Lord Woolf CJ said: "In the case of Mr Fitzgerald's clients, the nature of the offence and the severity of the penalty actually imposed for the offence point in our judgment uncontestedly to the conclusion that no criminal charge is involved. Mr Fitzgerald argued that the nature of the proceedings is a more satisfactory second criterion but we do not accept this gloss improves on the Engel approach. We are concerned as to whether a criminal charge is involved. The nature of the offence was essentially disciplinary. Furthermore, the penalty which was imposed in the case of Mr Carroll, did involve additional days but additional days of a very limited number and not an additional sentence of imprisonment. It is true that the rule potentially provided for 42 additional days being imposed but as a matter of practice anything other than a small number of additional days would have been set aside as inappropriate for an offence of disobeying an order. We therefore have no hesitation in confirming the detailed and clear reasoning of Newman J for saying that Mr Fitzgerald's clients were not subject to a criminal charge."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Regina (Q and Another) v Same; CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1151; [2001] 2 FLR 1122; [2001] UKHRR 1035; [2001] 1 WLR 2002; [2001] 3 FCR 416; [2001] Prison LR 297; [2001] Fam Law 803
Valasinas v Lithuania 44558/98; [2001] ECHR 479; [2001] ECHR 483
24 Jul 2001
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to body search; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to other complaints; Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
Strip-searches may be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime. Here the applicant had been made to strip naked and have his sexual organs touched in front of a woman.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 34
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Rutten v The Netherlands [2001] ECHR 478; 32605/96; [2001] ECHR 482
24 Jul 2001
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
The claimant prisoner complained of the delay in his release, awaiting a review. Domestic court proceedings had lasted two and a half months at first instance and a further three months on appeal. The proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor to obtain an extension of the period during which the applicant, who had been convicted of attempted murder, was confined in a secure institution where he was being treated. The proceedings were based on the institution's assessment that the applicant remained dangerous. The applicant unsuccessfully opposed the proceedings on a technical ground relating to jurisdiction. Held: There had been a violation of article 5(4) as a result of delay in the holding of a hearing to determine whether the prolongation of detention was necessary, following the expiry of the period initially authorised. The court also held that there had been no violation of article 5(1). The purpose of article 5(1) was to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion, and, on the facts, the detention during the period of the delay could not be regarded as involving an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
European Convention on Hman Rights 5(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Hirst v United Kingdom; ECHR 24-Jul-2001 - Times, 03 August 2001; 40787/98; [2001] ECHR 477; [2001] ECHR 481
Rigby, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1379
24 Aug 2001
CA
Prisons
Application for judicial review of decision of parole board.
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Imtiaz Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 719; [2002] 3 WLR 505
5 Oct 2001
QBD
Mr Justice Hooper
Coroners, Prisons, Human Rights
An Asian youth was placed in a cell with another who was well known to be violent and racist. He was bludgeoned to death. The family sought a public investigation into how he came to be placed in such a position. An investigation had been refused by the Home Office. The family claimed, under the Human Rights Act, a right to have the matter determined. Investigations by the Coroner, and the Commission for Racial Equality would be limited. Contrary to what the Home Office said, the trial had done nothing to establish how the decision was made to put the two together. There had been an investigation which rejected the possibility of criminal action against the Prison Service. This was not public. An internal Prisons Service enquiry left several questions outstanding. Article 2 imposed a duty to protect life, and investigate a failure to do so. That investigation must be independent, effective, reasonably prompt, allow public scrutiny, and involve next of kin. That had not been satisfied. A declaration was granted requiring the Home Office to conduct such an investigation.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 2
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Stephen Craven v Secretary of State, and the Parole Board
5 Oct 2001
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Prisons, Human Rights
The applicant was serving life imprisonment for murder. He had been released on licence subject to a condition excluding him from the Newcastle area. He claimed this condition was unlawful. The applicant's own family connections were within the area from which he was excluded. He claimed the condition was imposed for questions of public acceptability, and infringed his right to family life. An interference with those rights required justification. The interference was according to law. The need to respect the feelings of victims is appropriate. The original exclusion zone was not thought out properly, but the second was. The exclusion zone condition was proportionate and valid.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 Part II - Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 69
1 Cites
Regina (on the Application of Craven) v The Parole Board [2001] EWHC Admin 850
5 Oct 2001
Admn
Prisons
[ Bailii ]
Petition of Andrew Scott and Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue Their Detention In Inhumane Prison Conditions [2001] ScotCS 242
26 Oct 2001
SCS
Lord Johnston
Scotland, Prisons, Constitutional, Human Rights
Each applicant sought an interim order against the Scottish Minister with respect to their treatment in prison. It had been found that the conditions in Barlinnie Prison were inhumane. The Crown responded that the court had no jurisdiction to make such an order. Held: McDonald is binding on the court. An interim order could not be made.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Court of Session Act 1988 45
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
Saxena, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prison Service [2001] EWCA Civ 1863
8 Nov 2001
CA
Prisons
Request for judicial review of decision not to release applicant for home detention.
[ Bailii ]
Iwanczuk v Poland (2001) 38 EHRR 148; 25196/94; [2001] ECHR 748; [2001] ECHR 757
15 Nov 2001
ECHR
Human Rights, Prisons
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The applicant was ordered to strip naked and was subjected to humiliating abuse by guards when he tried to exercise his right to vote in facilities provided in prison. His complaint of degrading treatment was upheld.
European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Potter and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1041
30 Nov 2001
Admn
Moses J
Prisons
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 . ."
Prison Act 1952 47(1) - Prison Rules 1999 8(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset [2001] EWHC Admin 1043
14 Dec 2001
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Prisons, Coroners, Human Rights
The deceased had committed suicide whilst in prison. It was argued that the prison should have recognised that he was a suicide risk, and acted accordingly. The coroner had requested a note from the jury as to the cause of death. The court considered whether a coroner's inquest satisfied the requirements for an investigation of a death in custody: "However, where there has been neglect on the part of the State, and that neglect was a substantial contributory cause of the death, my view is that a formal and public finding of neglect on the part of the State is in general necessary in order to satisfy those requirements [of article 2]." An inquest would not necessarily satisfy the procedural requirements of article 2 in such a case, but the court declined to order that the jury's note be incorporated in the inquisition, because inter alia the coroner had acted unlawfully in suggesting production of the note. No declaration was needed but, at the request of the Secretary of State, declared that: "by reason of the restrictions on the verdict at the inquest into the death of [the deceased] . . . that inquest was inadequate to meet [the] procedural obligation in Article 2 of the European Convention . . ."
European Convention on Human Rights 2
1 Cites
1 Citers
Reclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C
18 Dec 2001
SCS
Lord Marnoch and Lord Hardie and Lord Weir
Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional
A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act. Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to petition the governor. Had he done so and failed, he would have been able to seek judicial review. Nevertheless, the case should now go ahead. The pleas in law were rejected.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Crown Proceedings Act 1947 47 - Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 3(1) - Scotland Act 1998 57(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ ScotC ]
The Home Office v Mary Jane Wainwright, Alan Joseph Wainwright Times, 04 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2081; [2002] QB 1334
20 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton
Prisons, Torts - Other, Human Rights, Personal Injury
The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the prison officers had a right to conduct the search. The actions had occurred before the Human Rights Act came into force. There had been considerable uncertainty as to whether the Human Rights Act 1998 can apply retrospectively in situations where the conduct complained of occurred before the Act came into force. Case law had not decided whether s3 could operate retrospectively, but it did not. There appeared no intention of the prison officers to cause harm or distress, and no Wilkinson v Downton action was available to the claimant. Any consent was only to a search conducted properly. Claims other than for battery were dismissed. There is no tort of invasion of privacy, but only separate torts protecting body and property. The germ of a tort of breach of privacy all lay in the law of confidence. No element of confidence was involved here
Human Rights Act 1998 3 22(4) - Prison Act 1952 47 - Prison Rules 1964 (1964 No 388) 86(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
