Judicial Review of Prison Governor's Disciplinary Powers
| Author | A.N. Khan |
| Published date | 01 October 1988 |
| Date | 01 October 1988 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X8806100409 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
A.N.
KHAN
Faculty
of
Administrative Studies
Athabasca University, Alberta. Canada
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PRISON
GOVERNOR'S DISCIPLINARY
POWERS
Introduction
The House
of
Lords inacombined judgmentin Leech v. Parkhurst Prison
Deputy Governor; Prevot v. Long Larton Prison Deputy Governor 1has
resolved adisagreement between the English Court
of
Appeal and the
Northern Ireland Court
of
Appeal on a very important issue
of
prison
discipline. This article analyzes these developments.
It
will be remembered that it had been decided in Ridge v.Baldwin:
that wherever any person or body of persons has authority conferred by
legislation to make decisions affecting the rights or obligations
of
other
persons, such decisions are amenable to the remedy of judicialreview, i.e.
an order (previously one of the writs) to quash or review its decision can
be issued under
0.53
of
the Supreme Court Rules. The decision could be
flawed because
of
the legal rule, or in reaching it; or for failure to act fairly
towards the person, who would be adversely affected by the decision: i.e.
failing to have afforded to him a reasonable opportunity
of
learning what
is alleged against him and putting forward his own case in answer to it. It
is also important that there should be no personal bias against him on the
part
of
the decision-maker.
This had widened the scope of judicial review. Order 53
of
the
Supreme Court Rules, defining judicial review, was further liberalized
and widened by the House
of
Lords in
0'
Reilly v. Mackman 3. The position
now seems to be that the supervisory jurisdiction
of
the High Court under
prerogativeremedies does not depend on any artificialdistinctionbetween
"administrative" or "judicial" decisions.
Application to Prisons
It
would appear that the Home Office had accepted the English Court
of
Appeal's decision in R v. Hull Prison Board
of
Visitors ex parte St.
1. [1988] 1 All ER 48.J.
2. [1964] A.CAO; see Rv. Electricity Commissioners. ex parte London Electricity
Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd [1924]1 K.B.17!.
3. [1983] A.C.237.
October1988 351
To continue reading
Request your trial