Tag: Prisons

C v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 2014

The claimant sought to challenge a refusal to him, as a long standing convicted murderer of unsupervised leave from prison as part of a path to release. He was detained in a secure mental hosptal. The court now considered whether the claimant and hospital should be anonymised.
Held: The Court rejected the application for anonymity, but ordered it to be retained pending an appeal.
Cranston J said: ‘previous proceedings about this claimant are publicly available and I cannot see the justification for anonymity: the public have a right to know what I have decided about his claim for judicial review: R (M) v Parole Board [2013] EWHC 1360 (Admin), [2013] EMLR 23, paras 47-49. However, Dr H has written requesting that the hospital’s identity and that of the staff be concealed, to protect both the claimant and the other patients from potential intrusion. That is a reasonable request and there be an order of anonymity to that extent.’

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 167 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another Admn 22-May-2013
(Jan 2013) The court was asked whether an order for anonymity made in the course of proceedings for judicial review should be discharged upon the application of media and other interested parties. Various newspapers had applied for the order to be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jan-2016
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Media

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.606370

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Quinn: QBD 26 May 1999

A prisoner charged with a prison mutiny was moved to a prison, where one of the officers now worked. He feared reprisals, and that his trial would be unfair. The right to a fair trial is constitutional, but no real danger was shown here.

Citations:

Gazette 26-May-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, Prisons

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.87937

Tymoshenko v Ukraine: ECHR 30 Apr 2013

Citations:

49872/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 31-May-2012
. .
See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 3-Jul-2012
. .
Legal Summary – Tymoshenko v Ukraine (Legal Summary) ECHR 30-Apr-2013
ECHR Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Pre-trial detention for allegedly contemptuous behaviour to trial court: violation
Article 18
Restrictions for unauthorised purposes
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491929

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, ex parte Singh (Prem): QBD 27 Apr 1993

A prisoner who was detained ‘during HM pleasure’ is to be allowed to see all reports before the Parole Board considering his release save those for which Public Interest Immunity Certificate has been given.

Citations:

Times 27-Apr-1993, Independent 11-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1967 4, Criminal Justice Act 1991 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87819

Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 19 Dec 2017

The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed. Parliament must be assumed to have intended that the Crown be not bound by the 2006 Act. It would have required express provision. This is a question of statutory interpretation, and not of allowing an exemption.
The classic rule is that a statutory provision is not binding on the Crown without express words or ‘necessary implication’ Many statutes have been drafted and
passed on this basis. An amendment to this by the Court would have retrospective effect with substantial and unforeseeable consequences, though it might profitably be examined by the Law Commission. Other health and safety statutes made such express provision, and indeed other parts of the 2006 Act made such provision.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 81, (2018) 160 BMLR 1, [2018] 2 WLR 123, [2018] 2 All ER 212, [2018] AC 215, UKSC 2016/0070

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 31 Oct 2017 am Video, SC 31 Oct 2017 pm Video, SC 1 Nov 2017 am Video

Statutes:

Health Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – The Province of Bombay v The Municipal Corporation of The City of Bombay and Another PC 10-Oct-1946
(Bombay) The Board considered whether the Crown was bound by section 222(1) and section 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act 1888, which in effect gave the Municipality power to carry water mains for the purposes of water supply through, across . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool Admn 21-May-2014
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the . .
Cited – The British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 5-Mar-1964
The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory . .
At Admn – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Gorton Local Board v Prison Comrs (Note) 1887
The Prison Commissioners were not bound by local by-laws made under the Public Health Act 1875, requiring the local authority to certify that newly built houses were fit for human habitation. . .
Cited – Cooper v Hawkins 1904
Vehicles driven by Crown servants on Crown business were not subject to the speed limits laid down by the local authority under the Locomotives Act 1865. . .
Cited – Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .
Cited – Attorney General v Hancock 1940
The Crown could enforce a debt for unpaid income tax without the leave of the court, not being bound by the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act 1939, which prohibited enforcement without leave. . .
Cited – Madras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland House of Lords HL 11-Mar-1955
Income Tax, Schedule D – Balancing charge – Succession by Crown – Whether cessation provisions apply – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 11 ; Finance Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V, c. 22), Section 32.
Cited – Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins CA 1963
The Crown was not bound by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 to get planning permission for the afforestation of its land, though its tenants are so bound.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Looking at the whole of the Town and Country Planning Act, . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – N, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 24-Jul-2009
A challenge was made to the ban on smoking at a secure hospital. . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.601507

Dowsett, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 27 Mar 2013

The claimant prisoner objected to the defendant’s policies that male prisoners were not to be allowed to refuse ‘rub-down’ searches by female prison officers, save on religious or cultural grounds. He said that the exceptions were too tightly limited, and were discriminatory.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 687 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 47(1), Prison Rules 1999 41

Prisons

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472073

Razvyazkin v Russia: ECHR 3 Jul 2012

The Court discussed proportionality in respect of the solitary confinement of a prisoner under Article 8: ‘Given that solitary confinement is a serious restriction of a prisoner’s rights which involves inherent risks to the prisoner, the level of actual or potential harm must be at least equally serious and uniquely capable of being addressed by this means. This is reflected, for example, in most countries having solitary confinement as a sanction only for the most serious disciplinary offences, but the principle must be respected in all uses of the measure. The longer the measure is continued, the stronger must be the reason for it and the more must be done to ensure that it achieves its purpose.’

Citations:

13579/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)), [2012] ECHR 1364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462103

Tymoshenko v Ukraine: ECHR 31 May 2012

Citations:

49872/11 (Communicated Case), [2012] ECHR 1160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 3-Jul-2012
. .
See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine (Legal Summary) ECHR 30-Apr-2013
ECHR Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Pre-trial detention for allegedly contemptuous behaviour to trial court: violation
Article 18
Restrictions for unauthorised purposes
See Also – Tymoshenko v Ukraine ECHR 30-Apr-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461995

FGP v Serco Plc and Another: Admn 5 Jul 2012

The claimant said that whilst he had been being taken from an immigration detention centre to hospital, he had been restrained by various forms of handcuffs. He said that had been unlawful.
Held: The claim failed: ‘ the recommendation that there should only be handcuffing in exceptional circumstances is to apply too high a test. Those making the risk assessment have to decide whether handcuffing is reasonably necessary and so proportionate having regard to all relevant circumstances, which will include the insecure nature of the hospital. The claimant had criminal convictions and the most recent for affray indicated that there had been violence or a threat of violence to others. In addition, he had a history which indicated that he was liable to react to pressure in a disruptive fashion and there was also the possibility of self harm. It was known that he was most anxious to avoid return to Algeria. One of the main reasons for his detention was concern that if not detained he would abscond.
In my judgment, what was known of the claimant justified the assessment that he should be restrained during the hospital visit. Having seen and heard the two witnesses who gave evidence, I am satisfied that they did consider in a proper fashion whether restraint was needed.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1804 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Home Office Detention Services Order 1/2002, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 13-May-2009
. .
Cited – C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 28-Jul-2008
The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461953

Scoppola v Italy (No 3): ECHR 22 May 2012

(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law.

Citations:

126/05, [2012] ECHR 868

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Scoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 18-Jan-2011
(referral to the grand chamber) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections, Prisons

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460181

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey: CA 29 Jul 1994

A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those who were also detained under the MHA by reason of transfer and restriction directions given by the Home Secretary under sections 47 and 49 respectively. ‘I [do not] see anything unjust or illogical in two separate codes existing which cannot be triggered simultaneously, but each of which at an appropriate time, depending on the circumstances, can be triggered so as to achieve a judicial hearing. ‘ The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1994, [1995] QB 43, [1995] 1 WLR 734

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 31 Sch 12 9(3), Mental Health Act 1983 47 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hickey and Others QBD 28-Oct-1993
Parole provisions are to apply to life prisoners who had been transferred transferred to a mental hospital. . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .

Cited by:

Confirmed – Regina (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 19-Dec-2002
The applicant had been a discretionary life prisoner. His minimum period of detention had passed, but he continued to be detained under a transfer order for his treatment as mental health patient.
Held: The absence of any means for him to . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87747

Regina v Sharkey: CACD 10 Nov 1999

Where an offender had been released from prison under licence, but committed a further offence whilst released on licence, and had already been recalled to prison by way of his licence being revoked under section 39, that did not prevent a court dealing with the offender also making an order under s40 for the remainder of the original term to be served consecutively if that was appropriate. The sole concern of the Parole Board is with risk, and it has no role at all in the imposition of punishment.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 Cr App R 409, [2000] 1 WLR 160

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 39 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Stocker CACD 20-Jan-2003
Whilst released on licence from prison, the defendant committed further related offences. On sentencing the judge erred in calculating the amount of time to be served for the breach of the licence. Having been recalled, the time served between . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85553

Regina v Ellingham: CACD 28 Jan 1999

Where a defendant is convicted of bringing heroin into prison to supply prisoners, the offence is clearly very serious, and a previous lack of convictions can have only a limited mitigatory effect.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85246

Greens and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review: SCS 12 May 2011

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
See Also – Greens v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 12-Sep-2007
The defendant appealed against his sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment for a violent rape. . .
See Also – Robert W Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Aug-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439690

Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: Admn 31 Mar 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of the Board’s refusal to recommend his release on licence. He had served 33 years in prison after conviction for the brutal rape and murder of his seven year old niece.

Judges:

Behrens J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 800 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431615

Hirst v The United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Dec 2009

(Resolutions) The court noted the long delay in the respondent in implementing the judgment of the court and giving prisoners voting rights, the present consultation and adjourned until March 2011 for further information.

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 2260, 4025/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Citing:

At Commission – Hirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
Grand Chamber – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430457

Oakes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others: CA 22 Oct 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim that his recall to prison had been unlawful, and for damages. The Parole Board had subsequently ordered his release.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425469

Howden, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire: Admn 15 Oct 2010

The claimant challenged a decision to return him to prison from release on licence. He said that in a non-urgent situation it was wrong for the Secretary of State to accept police intelligence without further enquiries.
Held: The claim failed. The test for misbehaviour short of the required standard is not a high one. Having information from a source deemed to be reliable, there was no obligation on the respondent to make further enquiries.

Judges:

Langan QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2521 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Gulliver) v Parole Board CA 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had been released on licence, and recalled. He complained that the parole board had, in considering his re-release taken into account circumstances beyond those which had directly caused his recall.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal . .
Cited – McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 20-Jan-2010
When deciding whether a prisoner released on licence should be returned to prison, the question ‘is whether the Secretary of State could reasonably have believed on the material available to him that the claimant had not conducted himself by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425305

Jones, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: Admn 8 Oct 2010

The claimant challenged the decision to refuse to him recategorisation to category D. He complained of the weight given to evidence from a particular witness who spoke as to his character, but had never met him.
Held: The claim failed. The board had acted with access to substantial reports which would justify the decision without the evidence complained of.

Judges:

Langan QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2462 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424957

Regan v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police Force: Admn 28 May 2010

The prisoner was to be released, but had been refused a home detention curfew. The respondent had informed the prison that his life would be at risk if he was released to return to the address intended.

Judges:

The Recorder of Birmingham

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2297 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Humajn Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424076

McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 20 Jan 2010

When deciding whether a prisoner released on licence should be returned to prison, the question ‘is whether the Secretary of State could reasonably have believed on the material available to him that the claimant had not conducted himself by reference to’ the standard of good behaviour.

Judges:

Judge Pelling QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 369 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Howden, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Admn 15-Oct-2010
The claimant challenged a decision to return him to prison from release on licence. He said that in a non-urgent situation it was wrong for the Secretary of State to accept police intelligence without further enquiries.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401977

Baldauf v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 19 Jan 2010

The claimant challenged two aspects of the defendant’s decision to release him from custody on licence. First, it is said that the claimant should have been released on licence unconditionally and should not have been released on conditional licence. Secondly he challenge dth ecalaculation of th eremaining term of the licence.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ, Lloyd Jones J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 151 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396644

Griffiths v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 19 Dec 2013

The claimants challenge what is said to be the continuing failure of the Secretary of State for Justice (‘the Secretary of State’) to make adequate provision for so called approved premises to accommodate women released from prison on licence. The claimants are women prisoners approaching the date on which they will be considered for release on licence. There are now only six women’s approved premises in England, none in London, and none in Wales. Thus the claimants are said to face a significant likelihood of being in approved premises many miles from their homes and families, with detrimental effects on their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
Cranston J did declare that the Secretary of State had failed to discharge the public sector equality duty: ‘What is required is that the Secretary of State address possible impacts, assessing whether there is a disadvantage, how significant it is, and what steps might be taken to mitigate it. In the context of advancing equality of opportunity – one aspect of the duty – that means taking the opportunity to see whether more might be done for women, having regard to their particular circumstances. Nothing even approaching this has been done.’

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 136

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Coll v Secretary of State for Justice CA 31-Mar-2015
The appellant was serving a mandatory life sentence for murder. She was being considered for release from custody to ‘Approved Premises’. There were however more such centres for men and the provision for women was unplanned. The results, she said . .
At First Instance – Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 24-May-2017
The appellant female prisoner asserted that the much smaller number of probation and bail hostels provided for women prisoners when released on licence was discriminatory in leaving greater numbers of women far removed from their families.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.519336

Tarariyeva v Russia: ECHR 14 Dec 2006

A complaint was made that the authorities had failed in their duty to protect a prisoner’s life. The authorities had him in custody for two years and knew of his health problems. He was not properly treated in the penal colony. When he had acute pain, he was diagnosed with a perforated ulcer and peritonitis and transferred to a civilian hospital. The surgery performed there was defective. The civilian hospital authorised his discharge to the prison hospital knowing of post-operative complications requiring further surgery, but withheld crucial details from the prison, which treated him as an ordinary post-operative patient rather than an emergency case. The further surgery was performed too late and the patient died.
Held: The complaint succeeded. The Court examined the individual operational failings of the health care given to prisoners, and not simply whether there were proper systems in place.
The court discussed the general principles applicable to the protection of the right to life: ‘The Court reiterates that . . art.2 . . requires the state not only to refrain from the ‘intentional’ taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. In the context of prisoners, the Court has already emphasised in previous cases that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them. It is incumbent on the state to account for any injuries suffered in custody, which obligation is particularly stringent where the individual dies.
Those obligations apply in the public-health sphere too. The positive obligations require states to make regulations compelling hospitals, whether private or public, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of patients’ lives. They also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, and those responsible made accountable. Furthermore, where a hospital is a public institution, the acts and omissions of its medical staff are capable of engaging the responsibility of the respondent State under the Convention.’

Citations:

4353/03, [2006] ECHR 1096, [2007] Prison LR 270, [2008] Inquest LR 209, (2009) 48 EHRR 26

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Another Admn 26-Jul-2016
The court was aked what article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires of a coroner when a serving prisoner dies of natural causes.
Held: The reuest for judicial review failed. Mr Tyrrell’s death was, from the outset, one which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Coroners

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.248183

Abbott v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and Others: PC 12 Jun 1979

Trinidad and Tobago

Citations:

[1979] UKPC 15, [1979] 1 WLR 1342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abbott v The Queen PC 20-Jul-1976
The appellant was charged as a principal in the first degree, and the issue was whether the defence of duress was available. The Board considered the availability of duress as a defence to a criminal charge.
Held: The defence was not open to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.443387

JL, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Justice: Admn 7 Oct 2009

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2416 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Mousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376141

Matthews, Regina (On the Application of) v HMP Swaleside: Admn 5 Oct 2009

The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision to refuse to allow the Claimant to submit a Tutor Marked Assessment (TMA) to the Open University

Judges:

William Davis QC HHJ

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2397 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Education, Human Rights

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376016

Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Jun 2009

The prisoner complained that the prison had monitored his conversations and communications with his doctor.
Held: The actions were a violation of the prisoner’s article 8 rights.

Judges:

L Garlicki, P and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, P. Hirvela, L. Bianku and N. Vucinic, Deputy Section Registrar F. Araci

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 845, Times 17-Jun-2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom ECHR 22-Feb-2008
. .
At administrative court – Szuluk, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Full Sutton Admn 20-Feb-2004
The prisoner was receiving long term health treatment, and objected that his correspondence with the doctor was being read. He was held as a category B prisoner but in a prison also holding category A prisoners, whose mail would be read. The prison . .
At Court of Appeal – Regina on the Application of Szuluk v The Governor of HMP Full Sutton and the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Oct-2004
Right of prison to read correspondence with doctor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374724

McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland: SC 11 Apr 2017

A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking indoors, but rather as to the ban on smoking in the grounds and on home visits, which, by creating a comprehensive ban, prevented detained patients from smoking anywhere.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. The respondent had not considered the principle that their actions should represent the minimum interference with a restrained person’s freedoms necessary to achieve the intended purpose. The absolute prohibition on having tobacco products and the related powers to search and confiscate were illegal and were nullified.
‘The Board did not purport to act under the 2003 Act in instituting the policy of prohibiting the possession of tobacco products, searching for such products and confiscating them. It may be the case that the consultation exercises which the Board carried out during 2011 were sufficient to comply with the obligations in section 1(2) and (3) of the 2003 Act. But there appears to have been no consideration of the obligation under section 1(4) nor compliance with the obligations to inform and record in the 2005 Regulations. This is not surprising as the Board considered that it was acting under the 1978 Act.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 31, [2017] 1 WLR 1455, 2017 GWD 12-169, 2017 SLT 451, [2017] 4 All ER 449, (2017) 156 BMLR 35, [2017] WLR(D) 268, UKSC 2015/0135

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Outer House – CM, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Aug-2013
(Outer House) The prisoner, held in a high security psychiatric hospital, challenged the outright ban on smoking.
Held: The Lord Ordinary declared that the impugned decision was unlawful so far as it affected Mr McCann both because it was not . .
Extra Div Inner House – SN v Secretary of State for The Home Department SCS 14-Jan-2014
Extra Division, Inner House – . .
Appeal From – Reclaiming Motion Charles McCann v The State Hospital Board for Scotland SCS 12-Aug-2014
Inner House – The house considered a reclaiming motion (appeal) as to the lawfulness of a decision by the respondents to prohibit smoking and the possession of tobacco in the buildings and grounds of the State Hospital, Carstairs. The Board . .
Cited – Lyons, Re Judicial Review SCS 2-Feb-2011
The petitioner was a detained patient, subject to both a compulsion and restriction orders. He objected to a policy restricting visitors from bringing food parcels, and restricting ordering food from outside.
Held: Lady Dorrian held that the . .
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Admn 20-May-2008
The applicants were detained at Rampton. The form of detention denied the access to space in which they would be able to smoke cigarettes to comply with the law.
Held: The claim failed. The legislative objectives were sufficiently serious to . .
Cited – Munjaz v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jul-2012
The applicant was detained in a secure mental hospital. He complained that he had been held in seclusion.
Held: The complaints under articles 5 and 8 were admissible, but there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights in these . .
Cited – Bruggeman and Scheuten v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 12-Jul-1977
(Commission) The applicants complained at restrictions on the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
Held: Article 8(1) secures to the individual a sphere within which he can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his personality. He . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – Niemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
Cited – Regina v Broadmoor Hospital Authority, Ex p S CA 1998
Routine and random searches may be an incident of therapeutic detention and treatment. . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.581645

Hirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2): ECHR 30 Mar 2004

(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and disproportionate. Different signatory countries had applied different standards. The UK law made a great distinction between different categories of offender or crime, but did not apply the same rules to prisoners on remand or imprisoned for non-payment of fines or contempt. There was no evidence of the issues having been considered by parliament in a way which took account of the issues of human rights.

Citations:

74025/01, Times 08-Apr-2004, (2004) 38 EHRR 825, [2004] ECHR 122

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights A3-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General QBD 17-Apr-2001
A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the . .

Cited by:

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. . .
At Commission – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
At Commission – Hirst v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Dec-2009
(Resolutions) The court noted the long delay in the respondent in implementing the judgment of the court and giving prisoners voting rights, the present consultation and adjourned until March 2011 for further information. . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.195514

A v United Kingdom: ECHR 1980

The Commission declared admissible a complaint from a Broadmoor patient who had been secluded for five weeks after a fire. A friendly settlement was reached, without admission of liability but on the basis that new guidelines for the use of seclusion would be issued, as indeed they were.

Citations:

(1980) 3 EHRR 131

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health, Prisons

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185209

Kats and Others v Ukraine: ECHR 14 Mar 2006

Citations:

29971/04, [2006] ECHR 1201

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Kats and Others v Ukraine ECHR 18-Dec-2008
The applicants were the parents and son of a prisoner who died in custody of an HIV related illness. They complained of her treatment in custody.
Held: If someone dies in custody an explanation of the cause of death must be provided, including . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272865

Lunn, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Moorland: Admn 26 Oct 2005

The applicant sought to have included in the calculation of time served the period of 56 days during which he had been mistakenly released on licence after an administrative error.
Held: The period was not to be included.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2558 (Admin), Times 02-Nov-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.235397

Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another: Admn 31 Jan 2008

The court considered the complications created when the schemes for providing early release of short term prisoners had not been implemented, but the new Act impacted in the previous arrangements anyway as regards those sentenced to consecutive sentences for less and more than 12 months. The Secretary of State had issue a policy guidance which set out how the calculations of the release date should be made.
Held: The scheme brought in by 2005 Regulations was unlawful, being a policy decision, and: ‘It is simply unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law for it to be well nigh impossible to discern from statutory provisions what a sentence means in practice. That is the effect here.’
Mitting J said: ‘The only policy capable of giving effect to the policy of the 2003 Act and to the rational expectations of prisoners dealt with under both Acts is to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in relation to Home Detention Curfew, but are subject to the maximum period of licence on release which can lawfully be imposed.’ The one implemented was not such a policy.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 207 (Admin), [2008] ACD 43

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 174(1)(b)(i), Criminal Justice Act 2003
(Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Highton, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Youth Offender Institute Lancaster Farms and Another Admn 17-Apr-2007
Challenge to calculation of servable sentence term. . .

Cited by:

At First Instance – Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another SC 30-Jun-2010
The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of . .
Appeal From – Noone, Regina (on the Application of) v HMP Drake Hall and Another CA 17-Oct-2008
The prisoner disputed the calculation of the date when she would become entitled to consideration for early release under a Home Detention Curfew. The Secretary of State appealed against a decision that his policy guidance was unlawful.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264522

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 infringed their human right to family and private life. The refusal had been on the basis that the couple’s relationship had not been tested under normal conditions, and that insufficient provision had been made for the care of any child born through a procedure. However a refusal of such treatment would effectively prevent the couple ever having children. No great security or administrative provisions were required. There is no place in human rights law for the refusal of humane treatment for any desire not to offend public opinion. The refusal also offended against the need for rehabilitation as the prisoner came toward the end of a long sentence.
If there is to be any restriction on Convention rights of prisoners or detainees, that has to be justified in each individual case. This justification can flow from the ‘necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment’ or from ‘an adequate link between the restriction and the circumstances of the prisoner in question’. But the justification cannot be based ‘solely on what would offend public opinion’.

Judges:

Rozakis P

Citations:

2008) 46 EHRR 41, [2007] ECHR 1050, Times 21-Dec-2007

Links:

Bailii Press Release, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 12

Citing:

See Also – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Apr-2006
The applicants were husband and wife who wanted infertility treatment by IVF. Mr Dickson as a prisoner, and they complained that the refusal of facilities was an interference in their right to family life as a refusal to fulfil a positive . .

Cited by:

Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – AB, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 4-Sep-2009
The claimant was serving a sentence of imprisonment. She was a pre-operative transgender woman, but held in a male prison. She sought review of a decision to refuse transfer to a women’s prison. The Gender Recognition Panel was satisfied that the . .
Cited – O’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
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 . .
Cited – Bary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Cited – City of London v Samede and Others QBD 18-Jan-2012
The claimant sought an order for possession of land outside St Paul’s cathedral occupied by the protestor defendants, consisting of ‘a large number of tents, between 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, many of them used by protestors, either . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262978

Niazi and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 26 Jun 2007

The applicants complained that the respondent had unlawfully withdrawn an ex gratia scheme for compensation for miscarriages of justice.
Held: The withdrawal had not been unlawful. The scheme was entirely discretionary.

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1495 (Admin), Times 09-Jul-2007

Links:

Bailii

Prisons

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253666

Somerville, Cairns, Ralston, Blanco and Henderson v The Scottish Ministers: OHCS 3 Nov 2006

Judges:

Lord President And Lord Nimmo Smith And Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSIH – 52, 2007 SC 140

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252760

CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department: FD 30 Jan 2004

The court considered the choice or procedures arising in relation to a baby ward of court living with its mother in prison. The sentence to be served would take the child beyond the maximum age provided for in mother and baby units.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 111 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 517

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Rules 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) 10-Mar-2000
There should at be lodged with the court a summary of the background to the hearing; a statement of the issue or issues to be determined; a summary of the order or directions sought by each party; a chronology; and skeleton arguments. . .

Cited by:

Cited – E v Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council FD 1-Jun-2005
The applicant sought an order restraining publication by the defendants of material, saying she did not have capacity to consent to the publication. She suffered a multiple personality disorder. She did herself however clearly wish the film to be . .
Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice, Prisons

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231166

Hirst, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 21 Jun 2005

Challenge to recall of lifer to prison after release on licence.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1480 (Admin), Times 04-Jul-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228896

Wright, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Nov 2004

Request for judicial review of refusal to pay compensation for wrongful detention in prison after end of sentence.

Judges:

Bennett J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 3084 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Prisons, Damages

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226917

Home Office v Bailey and others: CA 22 Mar 2005

Prison officers claimed awards for sex discrimination. The employer replied that the pools of comparators each contained members of either sex. The appellants sought to establish that any less favourable treatment of them in comparison with the comparators was genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex and which is a material difference. The Home Office did not accept that it was obliged by s. 1 (3) of the 1970 Act objectively to justify any such difference.
Held: Lord Justice Peter Gibson: ‘the ET is concerned to determine whether what on its face is a gender-neutral practice may be disguising the fact that female employees are being disadvantaged as compared with male employees to an extent that signifies that the disparity is prima facie attributable to a difference of sex. ‘ there was ‘no justification for the imposition of a high threshold for satisfying the test of prima facie discrimination. ‘ Lord Justice Waller: ‘where a difference in pay is established, and statistics seem to indicate a possibility of a disproportionate impact on women when looking at both the advantaged and disadvantaged groups as a whole, those statistics must provide sufficient evidence to get those carrying the burden over the hurdle of placing the onus on the employer to show that there were material factors which were not the difference in sex. ‘

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 327

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Home Office v A Bailey and others EAT 2-Jul-2004
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence
The EAT allowed an appeal by the Home Office from a decision of an Employment Tribunal which had determined as a preliminary issue that the Home Office was . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .
Cited – Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd CA 15-Apr-2003
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
Cited – Barry v Midland Bank Plc HL 22-Jul-1999
The defendant implemented a voluntary retirement scheme under which benefits were calculated according to the period of service of the employee. The plaintiff claimed that the scheme discriminated against workers who had taken career breaks, and . .

Cited by:

See Also – The Home Office v A Bailey and others EAT 2-Nov-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Permission to Appeal Further and Costs
Test for granting/refusing permission to appeal. Whether power to make partial order for costs. . .
Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson and others EAT 26-Mar-2007
The council appealed a finding that there was no genuine material factor justifying a difference in pay, and in particular the availability of bonus schemes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Discrimination

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223778

Miah, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 22 Jul 2004

The prisoner had been sentenced but then transferred to a secure mental hospital. Whilst there be acted in a way equivalent to a hostage taking.
Held: Upon his release from the mental hospital the powers as to recall under the prison sentence remained intact, and he was properly returned to prison.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 10-Sep-2004, [2004] EWHC 2569 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Health

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219528

Francis and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2004

Each prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled after charged with further crimes. They made representations to the Home Secretary which were rejected. After being acquitted of the respective offences, they sought to make further representations.
Held: The representations were as to the way in which the decision to recall them had been made, and not to the reasons underlying it. Accordingly whilst circumstances might arise in which further representations would be properly accepted by the respondent, those circumstances would be limited again to the way the decision had been taken. Here the representations against a recall were in reality as to the continuing propriety of their detention, and were not to be accepted in this form. In any event the decision as to whether to accept representations lay with the respondent.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-2004, [2004] EWHC 2143 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218718

Ganci v Italie: ECHR 30 Oct 2003

The applicant was serving two life sentences for Mafia related activities. He challenged nine decrees issued by the Minister of Justice under which he was held under a special prison regime for a period of four years. His case related to delays by the courts in dealing with his challenge. The Court said: ‘the applicant was contesting the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on a series of rights commonly recognised to prisoners . . at least some of the serious restrictions laid down by the decrees . . such as the one restricting his contact with his family and the ones affecting his finances – certainly fell within the sphere of personal rights and were therefore civil in nature.’

Citations:

41576/98, [2003] ECHR 566, (2005) 41 EHRR 16

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Applied – Gulmez v Turkey ECHR 20-May-2008
The applicant complained inter alia of successive decisions which had deprived him of visitation rights for about a year as punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison.
Held: ‘the restriction on the applicant’s visiting rights . .
Applied – Enea v Italy ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a prisoner serving a long sentence for Mafia-type criminal offences, was subjected to a special regime by ministerial decrees. The restrictions included not only very limited family visits but also a long period . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Cited – Stegarescu and Bahrin v Portugal ECHR 6-Apr-2010
The two applicants complained that they had been held in solitary confinement for seven months after receipt of intelligence about an escape plan.
Held: There had been a violation of the prisoners’ article 6 rights. They had been given no . .
Cited – Boulois v Luxembourg ECHR 14-Dec-2010
The applicant was serving a long sentence for serious offences. He had submitted several requests for ‘prison leave’ in order to carry out tasks in preparation for his eventual release. These had been refused by the Attorney General. The domestic . .
Cited – King v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 13-Oct-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions that the claimant had committed a disciplinary offence whilst in custody at a Young Offenders Institute.
Held: The claim failed.
Pitchford LJ considered the ECHR jurisprudence, and said: . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213554

Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson: CA 6 May 1992

It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life prisoner. The report iindicated that he might still be a risk if released on licence.
Held: He could not make use of the right to make representations if he was not told of the allegations against him. Natural justice required that he be given the information.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] QB 740, [1992] 2 WLR 707

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Adopted – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Approved – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.87525

Hindawi and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 29 Jan 2004

The prisoner was subject to a long term of imprisonment, and also to a deportation order which was to take effect upon his release. He complained that, because of the latter, he had not been considered for parole, and that this was discriminatiry.
Held: The difference in treatment occurred because of the nationality of the prisoner. Such a decision in respect of French nationals would be discriminatory. It was not for the court to speculate as to the reasons for the policy, but it was discriminatory and unlawful.

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] EWHC 78 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 31, European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192687

Murdock, Re an Application for Judicial Review NIQB 23: QBNI 31 Mar 2003

Application by a sentenced prisoner, for a declaration that the search of his cell by prison officers and in particular the examination of legal correspondence when he was not present was unlawful.

Citations:

[2003] NIQB 23

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Murdock, Re an Application for Judicial Review NIQB 24 QBNI 31-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Prisons

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184108

William Faulkner v The United Kingdom: ECHR 4 Jun 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

37471/97, [2002] ECHR 481

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Huma Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – William Faulkner v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2011
A single letter had not been sent on from a prisoner to the Scottish Minister of State. A violation of article 8 was found. The interference was not ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for any reason permitted by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172151

Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jul 2016

The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed from refusal of a finding that his subsequent detention had been unlawful.
Held: Though there had been conceded breaches by the SS, ‘there is no link, let alone a direct link, between, on the one hand, the Minister’s wrongful failure for 12 days to provide to the appellant an adequate explanation for his recall and, on the other, the lawfulness of his detention. The failure did not delay reference of his case to the First-tier Tribunal. Nor has the appellant suggested that it delayed institution of the present proceedings. Even if it had created delay, the unequivocal statement of Lord Mance and Lord Hughes in the Kaiyam case about the limited effects of a violation of article 5(4) would appear to exclude the relevance of the delay to the validity of the detention itself.’
The SS did concede an infringement of the claimant’s human rights, and damages had to be assessed, as to which: ‘damages should not be payable to the appellant for the breach of his right under article 5(2) of the Convention any more than that they should be payable for the breach of his right at common law. He has failed to establish that their effects on him were sufficiently grave. Nor would a formal declaration in this court’s order add anything to my recording in this judgment of the Minister’s concessions’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 46, [2017] AC 52, [2016] 3 WLR 590, [2016] Med LR 551, [2016] WLR(D) 424, (2016) 151 BMLR 1, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 383, UKSC 2014/0248

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Health Act 1983 42(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Admn – Lee-Hirons, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 28-Jun-2013
This case raises, among other matters, an issue about whether reasons for a restricted patient’s recall to detention in a hospital have to be provided orally or in writing. . .
Appeal from – Lee-Hirons, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice and Another CA 1-May-2014
The Court was asked significant questions as to the procedure to be followed when a person is recalled by the Secretary of State to be detained in a hospital under the power conferred by section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Appellant . .
Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
Cited – Fox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-1990
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
Cited – MM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2007
Challenge to directions given by the respondent for the recall of the appellant to a mental hospital.
Held: The breach of a condition would, if of ‘sufficient significance’ justify a recall. . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Saadi v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jan-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to detain him for a short period while his asylum claim was being subject to fast-track processing. The decision was made pursuant to a policy under which all asylum claimants . .
Cited – Mandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Zagidulina v Russia ECHR 2-May-2013
The Court limited itself to article 5(1)(e), when it stated that: ‘the notion of ‘lawfulness’ in the context of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention might have a broader meaning than in national legislation. Lawfulness of detention necessarily presumes . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.567607

Iwanczuk v Poland: ECHR 15 Nov 2001

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.

Citations:

(2001) 38 EHRR 148, 25196/94, [2001] ECHR 748, [2001] ECHR 757

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166787