Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of residence and work restrictions. The respondent had refused consent based on concern for the victim and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Held: The decision was properly reached and had not taken into account irrelevant matters: ‘right-thinking members of the public would take the view that an offender serving the non-custodial part of a sentence of imprisonment should not be allowed to take part in a high profile, controversial television production, promoting his status as a celebrity and with considerable financial gain. At any rate that is a reasonable view which Mr Wilson was entitled to reach.’ The decision was for the respondent, and no statutory status attached to the officer himself, whose own view was not therefore improperly overruled.
Bean J
[2009] EWHC 3415 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 244, Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor CA 4-Apr-2001
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 . .
Cited – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2007
(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal . .
Cited – Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .
Cited – Nilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Uttley v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2003
Licence conditions imposed at the time of sentence would restrict the defendant after he had served his sentence and been released, and so operated as a heavier penalty, and section 33(1) was incompatible with the defendant’s Art 7.1 rights.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Media
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.384458