Decision to invoke Prison Rules for a vulnerable prisoner was not arbitrary or irrational

Judicial review – prison law - bleak account of incarceration in the Midlands Prison - telescoped hearing - Assistant Governor in the Prison has refuted most of the assertions made in the originating affidavit so comprehensively that the Applicant has been compelled to confine his argument to one issue only: whether rule 62 procedures, which mandate the review and recording of certain decisions, should have been applied to him - argues that confidential information in the possession of the Respondents should be open to review – not pleaded originally - vulnerable prisoner - confidential information to the effect that there is a viable and continuing threat to his life – argued should be afforded procedural safeguards - reviewing the decision of a prison governor – duty of candour – prison rules - the vulnerable prisoner under Rule 63 and the protection of Rule 62 - clear from the wording of rule 62 that information provided to the Governor may form the basis for a decision to impose the restrictions described so that there may be considerable overlap between rules 62 and 63 - status of the Prison Rules - alleged that he had been subjected to a continuous regime of solitary confinement and that he was often locked into a cell for 23 hours of the day- now accepted that this is not so and that he is afforded at least two hours, daily, for recreation in the gym or yard - alleges that the decision to categorise him as a rule 63 prisoner is negatively impacting on his mental health, but he has produced no supporting evidence to this effect and has made no request to see medical staff in relation to medical or mental health issues arising from being placed on rule 63 - insufficient evidence in this case to warrant a declaration that rule 62 should have been invoked - confidential information and Rule 63 - a court can only become involved in the issue at a point when procedures provided have been exhausted or if the argument is made that these procedures are inadequate in a particular case - the rule 62 regime may, in certain circumstances, apply to a rule 63 prisoner -not in this case - has not been made the subject of a regime as restrictive as those which applied in the cases on which he relied - decision to invoke rule 63 was not arbitrary or irrational - based on confidential information and there is no basis on which to quash that decision – judicial review refused.