The claimant prisoner, subject to a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, sought leave to visit his father who was dying at home. The prison refused but said that the decision might be different if the claimant’s father was in a hospice or hospital. The decision was supported on security grounds. The father did not want to go to hospital.
Held: Though a practical solution now might be available, the court considered the law behind a decision. The court could not substitute its own risk assessment.
Though some thought had gone into the need for the visit, not enough thought had been applied to how the risks might be managed. A positive duty under the Convention was engaged. The Guidance from the defendant was not without difficulty. The governor’s initial decision to grant an escorted visit if conditions could be met in fact became a refusal to consider whether steps might be taken to reduce the risks. Judicial review was granted.
Grenfell J
[2009] EWHC 3634 (Admin)
Bailii
Prison Rules 9, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ploski v Poland ECHR 12-Nov-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had been in prison on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.401941