Bramble v The Home Office
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Hughes,Lord Justice Ward |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 163 |
| Date | 14 January 2010 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2009/0601 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 163
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE Central London Civil Justice Centre
(His Honour Judge Collins)
Before: Lord Justice Ward
and
Lord Justice Hughes
Case No: B2/2009/0601
THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
Lord Justice Hughes:
This is an application for permission to appeal in what has been quite long running litigation brought by Mr Bramble against The Home Office in which he has over the years made a number of complaints about his treatment when he was a long term prisoner. We are told that he was released after a long sentence in April 2008. He tells us that there has been no complaint whatever about his behaviour since and if that is right it is very much to his credit, particularly with the background that there must have been. The present application is for permission to appeal from an order of HHJ Collins made on 26 February 2009. I will in a moment try to set out such part of the history as will perhaps explain why Mr Bramble feels that he has been wronged but it is quite important to have at the forefront these few points. First, Mr Bramble can only seek to appeal in relation to issues which were before HHJ Collins for decision. Secondly, HHJ Collins could only decide those issues which were properly before him. Thirdly, the right of appeal exists if—but only if—there are reasonable prospects of this court holding that the judge below did not simply make an order which this court might not have made but has gone plainly wrong.
The issue which was before HHJ Collins was the amount of damages recoverable by Mr Bramble under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of the manner in which a strip search had been conducted on him on 30 July 2002. That there had been a breach of Article 3 had been admitted by the Home Office and that meant that the only issue which was before the judge was the level of damages. The judge assessed damages at £1,000 and en route to that decision he made some findings of fact after he had heard evidence on both sides.
Mr Bramble's present complaints are really two and if we may say so he has explained them very clearly to us here and with some good humour. The first is that the judge ought to have ordered further disclosure by the Home Office, particularly because previous directions given by judges about disclosure had either been wrongly made or had been induced by wrong statements made on behalf of the Home Office. That is the first complaint. And the second is that the level of damages was much too low.
At the relevant time Mr Bramble was serving a sentence which appears to have been for 20 years' imprisonment. The source of his grievance is it seems his complaint that he was kept as a category A prisoner for much longer than he should have been, with resultant or connected refusals of applications for earlier release. In terms it is his case that that happened at least in part because false allegations were being made against him of drug dealing and intimidation of others in prison.
The strip search happened on 30 July 2002 in Long Lartin Prison as part of a move of Mr Bramble from the wing to the segregation unit. His complaint is and was that that search involved a breach of Article 3 because, firstly, women officers were present and, secondly, the video recording of the search which by itself was routine had wrongly involved the camera photographing his private parts. In due course Mr Bramble launched civil proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We have not been shown his claim form but it is clear that he made a number of different complaints not limited to the strip search. On 19 May 2005 HHJ Knight heard and determined an application made by the defendant Home Secretary to strike out the claim. At that point the Home Secretary succeeded. Mr Bramble appealed the order striking out his claim. He needed permission to appeal. The application for permission was heard by Mitting J on 6 April 2006. That judge gave permission to appeal in relation only to the manner of the strip search. In all other respects Mr Bramble's appeal failed and that means that all his other complaints were at that stage at an end so far as this litigation was concerned. That is the inevitable consequence of that order.
I ought, I think, to interpose the history that in the meantime there appears to have been a separate claim for judicial review in relation to the continued maintenance of category A status. That was heard by Gibbs J in May 2005 and failed.
In the ordinary course after Mitting J had given permission to appeal in relation to the manner of the strip search there would have followed a hearing of the appeal to determine whether the striking out order should stand or not. That however never happened because on 15 August 2006 the Home...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd
...to what he said he did at particular dates. 11 I am warned by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Favor Easy Management v Wu [2010] EWCA Civ 163 about the dangers of making interlocutory rulings concerning evidence outside the context of a specific application. It is unusual to be asked ......
-
Geena Lloyd v London Borough of Lewisham Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Intervener)
...concluded that he could not distinguish this case from the decision of this court in an earlier case, Malekout v Secretary of State [2010] EWCA Civ 163. This decided, for the purposes of a similarly-worded provision concerning income support that, where an employee received from his employe......