![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Cooper v Her Majesty's Prison Service [2005] EWHC 1715 (Admin) (29 July 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1715.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 1715 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
OF
JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MICHAEL IVAN COOPER |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
HER MAJESTY'S PRISON SERVICE |
Defendant |
____________________
of
the Handed Down Judgment
of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr S Grodzinski (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, London) for the Defendant
____________________
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY :
Categorisation
"23. Decisions about the regressive movesof
lifers in closed conditions are made by the Operational Senior Managers in the event
of
:
. poor behaviour
. failure to comply with the regime
. concernsof
about risk or security
. non-suitability for the current allocation (for example, not complying with the sentence planning process or failing to progressively reduce risk) as recorded on LSP3B and 3E reports.
RCI must be used in the case for regressing a lifer to a higher security category.
24. Theprisoner
must be provided with the evidence and reasons for the regressive transfer. Information can only be withheld on security grounds or to protect the safety
of
a third party. The
prisoner
must be given the opportunity to make representations against the decision through the usual complaints process.
25. If a regression move is for urgent operational reasons and no prior disclosureof
this was possible, the
prisoner
must be allowed the opportunity to make representations as soon as possible after the move. The fact that a decision to change the category
of
a lifer has not been made does not prevent the
prisoner
being moved."
"…It seems to me basic that a decision which is as important as the present decision to Mr Hirst should not be taken without giving him the opportunity to make representations and to have the matter properly considered as a consequenceof
his so doing. I think that there is some substance, but would not overvalue it, in the problem referred to by Lord Justice Simon Brown which arise in reconsidering a decision. However, regardless
of
that difficulty, it seems to me that a decision
of
this nature as a matter
of
fairness should not be taken until Mr Hirst had been fully involved. He should have been given a reasonable period to make representations before the decision was taken. He should have been given that opportunity after he had been told the grounds upon which it was appropriate to recategorise him. If in the meantime it was necessary to move him to more secure conditions, that could be done…"
Access to the computer
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: For the reasons given in the judgment, which has been handed down, these applications for judicial review are dismissed. The other matters are to be dealt with in writing.