The claimant complained at a decision not to reduce his Category A status to that of a category B prisoner. He continued to maintain his innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted. He was therefore ineligible to take part in rehabilitation programmes.
Held: After Pate, the respondent had altered the policy to require a governor also to consider whether a prisoner might be prevented from escaping though re-classified as category B. The claimant said that in practice nothing had changed. What was required of a prisoner who maintained his innocence in order to achieve some reduction in his status was that he demonstrate some substantial reason why the risk of his escaping was reduced.
Elias J
[2004] EWHC 679 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – William Pate v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2002
The court considered the prisoner’s complaint that the respondent’s policies on the re-classification of prisoners were unlawful in that they disallowed the prison governor from classifying him as Category B despite the fact that as a frail and . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, Ex Parte Duggan QBD 9-Dec-1993
A High Security prisoner is to know the gist of report and reasons for his categorisation: ‘on the first and subsequent annual reviews, fairness, in my view, requires that the gist of the reports be revealed in order to give the opportunity for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte McAvoy CA 3-Dec-1997
A prisoner had the right to know the gist (though not the full contents) of reports used in deciding on a review of his security status. (Lord Woolf MR) ‘For my part, I accept that it is desirable, when something has the impact which being placed in . .
Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield Admn 25-Mar-1997
The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation.
Cited – Regina v Parole Board and others ex parte Oyston CA 1-Mar-2000
Lord Bingham set out the difficulties faced by the Parole Board when dealing with prisoners who maintained their denials of guilt: ‘Convicted prisoners who persistently deny commission of the offence or offences of which they have been convicted . .
Cited – Williams v The Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 17-Apr-2002
The applicant was a post-tariff discretionary life prisoner, applying for a change in his security classification. He sought disclosure of his security report which was denied by the respondent. He alleged a breach of his human rights.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Applied – Osborne, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Prison Littlehey Admn 26-May-2010
The claimant challenged the decision not to be reclassified to Category D. He was a convicted sex offender, but maintained his innocence. The defendant said this did not demonstrate a reduction in risk, since he was not eligible to participate in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.195560