The claimant complained that he had not been considered for early release on Home Detention Curfew because the policy refused to allow those convicted of knife crimes to be so considered, and: ‘the failure to include other offences in the list of unsuitability offences renders the scheme unlawful on the grounds of discriminatory, irrational and unfair differentiation between one group of prisoners and another. It was also submitted that the policy treated the Claimant less favourably than an asserted comparator group consisting of other prisoners convicted of equally serious offences involving weapons but who happen not to have been charged separately with the weapons offence.’
Held: The request for a declaration failed. There was no practice as suggested by the claimant of undercharging for knife crimes, and the policies of CPS and otherwise were clear. There were no comparators properly identified who had been treated differently.
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
[2011] EWHC 867 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 246
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re Findlay, in re Hogben HL 1985
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person . .
Cited – Cross, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor HM Young Offenders Institute Thorn Cross Admn 20-Jan-2004
The claimant prisoner challenged the governor’s refusal to release him on the home detention curfew scheme. Henriques J said: ‘no risk assessment is necessary in cases where a prisoner has committed a presumed unsuitable offence. It is only if there . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Clift v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Apr-2009
Mr Clift was serving a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment for very serious crimes, including attempted murder, and complained that the early release provisions in respect of his sentence gave rise to a violation of article 14. The House of Lords . .
Cited – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their . .
Cited – Mason v Ministry of Justice QBD 28-Jul-2008
The court considered whether the system of home detention was capable of amounting to a detention.
Held: The home detention curfew system satisfied the requirements of Article 5. . .
Cited – Yusuf, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board Admn 22-Jun-2010
The Claimant prisoner complained at not being allowed to make representations before a decision was made as to a move to open conditions.
Held: Her solicitors did not actually request an oral hearing at the time, and the prison governor could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.431836
