The claimant, whilst a prisoner. had been found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, and sentenced to additional days. He was not allowed representation at the hearing. The respondent argued that, the penalty having later been quashed, the hearing had been reduced in status to an administrative hearing which did not require compliance with the Human Rights Act.
Held: The decisive factor in Ezeh was the addition of days to the sentence. Stripped of the sentence the finding did not amount to a finding of guilt, and could properly be characterised as administrative. The decision could be useful in the management of the claimant’s conditions in prison. ‘In my view a proper reading of the Ezeh and Connors case leads to the conclusion that, absent the imposition of added days, absent the requirement that the adjudication needs to be Article 6 compliant. In other words, without those added days, application of the Engel criteria would have led to a different conclusion. I say that for several reasons.’
Judges:
Goldring J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 936 (Admin), Times 27-May-2004, Gazette 03-Jun-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 3056, [2005] 3 All ER 76, [2004] ACD 61
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
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 by:
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.196782