Prisons in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Raymond v Honey
    • House of Lords
    • 04 Mar 1982

    In my opinion, there is nothing in the Prison Act 1952 that confers power to make regulations which would deny, or interfere with, the right of the respondent, as a prisoner, to have unimpeded access to a court. Section 47, which has already been quoted, is a section concerned with the regulation and management of prisons and, in my opinion, is quite insufficient to authorise hindrance or interference with so basic a right.

  • Ellis v Home Office
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 May 1953

    If it is proved thatsupervision is lacking, and that accused persons have access to instruments, and that an incident occurs of a kind such as might be anticipated, I think it might well be said that those who are responsible for the good government of the prison have failed to take reasonable care for the safety of those under their care.

  • R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 23 May 2001

    First, the doctrine of proportionality may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions. Secondly, the proportionality test may go further than the traditional grounds of review inasmuch as it may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accorded to interests and considerations.

  • R (Lichniak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Nov 2002

    I doubt whether there is in truth a burden on the prisoner to persuade the Parole Board that it is safe to recommend release, since this is an administrative process requiring the board to consider all the available material and form a judgment.

  • R (Imtiaz Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 16 Oct 2003

    The purposes of such an investigation are clear: to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from his death may save the lives of others.

  • R (Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Carroll) v Same
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 Jul 2001

    Here this was the situation in relation to Deputy Governor Copple. Because the lawfulness of the order was being challenged, it was apparent there could be questions which required, if they were answered, the revelation of information which the prison could reasonably wish to remain confidential in the interests of security. For example, in prisons, sources of information are vital to the maintenance of security and control.

  • R (Jean Middleton) v HM Coroner for Western Somersetshire and Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Mar 2004

    These statistics, grim though they are, do not of themselves point towards any dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities (which have given much attention to the problem) or any individual official. But they do highlight the need for an investigative regime which will not only expose any past violation of the state's substantive obligations already referred to but also, within the bounds of what is practicable, promote measures to prevent or minimise the risk of future violations.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results