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 elderly prisoner any escape threat did not exist.
Held: Though it may be legitimate to have a policy aiming to make escape impossible for certain prisoners, it was not lawful to exclude the possibility that this objective could be achieved even in category B. Turner J said: ‘my judgment is that, the policy of making escape as near impossible as can be for prisoners who form the small group in which this claimant is found is not itself unlawful at least insofar as it excludes the exercise of discretion. This is on the basis that the aim of the policy is such as to preclude discretion at the stage when consideration is given to its formation. On the other hand, it is not a necessary incident of that policy that no consideration, as a matter of policy . . is given to the individual escape potential of prisoners within that group. The objective (aim) may be capable of being met with a lower categorisation in which event there is plainly scope, and I would hold duty, for the exercise of discretion.’
Judges:
Turner J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 1018 (Admin)
Cited by:
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 12-Mar-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.416334
