Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses judicial review brought by a prisoner challenging the alleged refusal to provide reasons for his transfer to a close supervision cell, on the grounds that the refusal of the prison staff to give out information in relation to the prisoner to the prisoner’s solicitor over the phone, without proof of identify or an authorisation, did not adversely affect the prisoner’s rights or undermine his right of access to the court.
Judicial review – prisoner was transferred to a padded cell or close supervision cell following an incident - Prison Rules – 5 days – mother requested reasons for this transfer – instructed a solicitor – requested reasons for the transfer – refused to give reasons and relied on GDPR - transferred from the special observation cell to the challenging behavioural unit – unable to contact her solicitor or mother – sought leave to judicially review – not clear whether the prisoner was aware of the proceedings - order granting leave and course of proceedings – alleged unlawful refusal to provide his solicitor with the information requested – whther GDPR applies – mootness – replying affidavit states that he seriously assaulted another inmate - put in the cell to prevent him causing imminent injury to himself or others and other less restrictive methods of control were in the opinion of the Governor, inadequate - reason and duration for same was undoubtedly known by the time the solicitor spoke to the prisoner - the provisions of the GDPR and implementing legislation do not prevent the respondent from informing the applicant’s solicitor of the reasons for confinement and the proposed duration of same is equally moot - if there is no entitlement to obtain the reasons, there is equally no entitlement to have a court consider whether the purported reason for refusal was a valid one – lack of standing – rights not affected - right of access to information, necessary to vindicate constitutional rights, was not adversely affected by the refusal to give out information over the phone to his solicitor about his detention – prisoner may already have known the information sought and if he did not know it, could have obtained it - no efforts were made by the solicitor to obtain the information through the avenues open to him and nor has he explained in affidavit evidence why he chose not to avail of those avenues - the refusal of the prison staff to give out information in relation to the applicant to the prisoner’s solicitor over the phone, without proof of identify or an authorisation, did not adversely affect the prisoner’s rights or undermined his right of access to the court - GDPR claim – judicial review refused
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.