Linda Griffiths v Secretary of State for Justice The Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/12016/2012 and CO/384/2013 |
| Date | 19 December 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Cranston
Case Nos: CO/12016/2012 and CO/384/2013
and
and
Dinah Rose QC and Matthew Stanbury (instructed by Criminal Defence Solicitors) for the Claimants
Oliver Sanders (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
Nick Armstrong (instructed by Equality and Human Rights Commission) for the Intervener
Introduction
The claimants challenge what is said to be the continuing failure of the Secretary of State for Justice ("the Secretary of State") to make adequate provision for so called approved premises to accommodate women released from prison on licence. The claimants are women prisoners approaching the date on which they will be considered for release on licence. There are now only six women's approved premises in England, none in London, and none in Wales. Thus the claimants are said to face a significant likelihood of being in approved premises many miles from their homes and families, with detrimental effects on their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. By contrast there are some 94 men's approved premises, spread throughout England and Wales.
The claimants' case is that the current state of affairs is unlawful, in that it treats women less favourably than men because of their sex; it subjects women to particular disadvantage by comparison with men; it particularly disadvantages Welsh women; and it constitutes a breach of the public sector equality duty by failing to give due regard to the adverse effects on women of the current provision. The complaint is not that there are not enough places for women in approved premises; there are. Rather the claimants' case is that approved premises places should be more widely distributed, in smaller centres if necessary, so that women, like comparable men, can be accommodated at a reasonable distance from their homes and families. In advancing their case the claimants invoke a series of reports recommending this as the appropriate course for public policy.
The claimants
(a) Linda Griffiths
Linda Griffiths is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. She is currently at HMP Askham Grange near York, having spent most of her time at HMP Send in Surrey. She was sentenced in 2009 for the offence of attempted murder of her 77 year old female employer. She had attacked her victim with a claw hammer, hitting her several times in the head and face, causing serious injuries. Her tariff under the sentence expires on 13 February 2016, whereupon she becomes eligible for release on licence which will remain in place for the rest of her life subject to any revocation and recall to prison.
In her witness statement Mrs Griffiths explains that she lived as a child in North Wales, spoke Welsh at home and learnt English only when she started at the local primary school. She attended a secondary school mainly with Welsh speakers. She feels much more comfortable speaking Welsh. Regarding her imprisonment, she states that she has been able to cope because of keeping ties with her family. She communicates with her parents and siblings on a regular basis in Welsh. Her husband, sons and grandchildren live in Cardiff. Because of the length of journey to the prison where she is, her husband visits on average only once every three months. She has been told by probation that a main priority must be to communicate better with her family. She understands that she will be required to live in approved premises for a period after her release from prison. Given the importance to her of communicating in Welsh and of reintegration into the community it would be more difficult if she were placed in approved premises where no one speaks that language. It would also make it more difficult to rebuild her family ties. It appears that Mrs Griffiths told her legal advisors in 2012 that she wished to resettle with her husband in North Wales, or alternatively in Cardiff. Her current intention is to return to South Wales to be with her husband and children.
In January 2013 Graham Morris, Mrs Griffiths' offender manager, prepared a parole assessment report. Mr Morris has been Mrs Griffiths' offender manager since the start of her sentence. In the report Mr Morris explained that she had worked hard to address her offending behaviour and recommended that she be moved to open conditions. That would allow her to develop her skills and would enable contact with her family and some contact with the community. Mr Morris did not mention approved premises in his report.
Neither did the Parole Board mention approved premises in its report of 11 June 2013. That recommended to the Secretary of State that Mrs Griffiths be transferred to open conditions given that she had successfully addressed her risk as far as she could in closed conditions. In a second witness statement Mrs Griffiths has said that at the hearing before the Parole Board Mr Morris stated that one of the issues he would investigate was suitable approved premises, albeit that he did not state definitely that she would be released to such premises. Mrs Griffiths accepts that if she lives in Cardiff in the future she may have to be excluded from certain areas of the city where her victim lives.
(b) Isobel Coll
Isobel Coll is serving a mandatory life sentence for murder imposed in 2004. She is currently being held at HMP Askham Grange. She and her co-defendant had been convicted of killing a man with whom the co-defendant had a relationship. Ms Coll had previous convictions, one for manslaughter in 199That also involved an adult male victim whom Ms Coll and another person had attacked. She was sentenced to four years imprisonment for that offence. Within three days of being released she committed a further offence of assault. In 2002 she committed an offence of unlawful wounding, although she blamed the co-defendant for breaking a glass bottle and ramming the shattered end into the victim's face. All offences took place in the context of heavy drinking by Ms Coll and those with whom she associated.
In 2012, when Ms Coll was in HMP Send, a probation officer prepared an OASys report. She was assessed as being a medium risk to the public in the community. In the section of the report on management issues the probation officer said that upon her release Ms Coll may be suitable to reside in approved premises or supported housing. That report also recorded Ms Coll's understanding that she would not be able to return to the Haringey area of London. She told the probation officer that she would like to be near her children and grandchildren, who are in London, where she has spent most of her life, but she would prefer to live outside the area. The author of the probation report prepared a parole assessment in mid October 2012. In the light of the progress Ms Coll had made she recommended that Ms Coll be transferred to open conditions. She assessed her as presenting a medium risk of harm to others. When the Parole Board considered the matter in May 2013 it recommended that Ms Coll be transferred to open conditions.
Approved premises
Probation Circular 37/2005, the "The Role and Purposes of Approved Premises", states that approved premises are:
"a criminal justice facility where offenders reside for the purposes of assessment, supervision and management, in the interests of protecting the public, reducing re-offending and promoting rehabilitation."
Approved premises were previously known as "probation hostels" or "bail hostels" until the single term "approved premises" was adopted in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. That nomenclature continues under the Offender Management Act 2007. The core purpose of approved premises is the provision of enhanced supervision as a contribution to the management of those who pose a high or very high risk of harm to the public. The purpose of approved premises is not the provision of residential accommodation for its own sake but residence as an integral feature of the enhanced supervision and risk management offered.
Residence in approved premises may be required as part of an order remanding a person on bail, as part of a community sentence, or as a licence condition when releasing a person from custody, for example, at the half way point of their sentence. The majority of persons in approved premises are there because of their licence conditions, over 90% of male placements, nearly 80% of female placements. A person released from prison is only subject to licence conditions if the sentence is 12 months or more: Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 238. These will tend to be those released while serving determinate sentences, since the Parole Board will not consider releasing life or other indeterminate sentence offenders on licence unless they can show that they do not pose a risk to the public.
Only a proportion of those released on licence have residence in approved premises imposed as a licence condition. It is the role of the probation trusts to recommend to the Secretary of State that this be a licence condition: Prison Service Instruction 40/2012; Probation Instruction 20/2012. As explained below, a result of Probation Circular 16/2008 was that the criteria for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott Henley-Smith v Secretary of State for Justice
...implications of the decision. 102 The Claimant relied upon the judgment of Cranston J. in R (Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin), which concerned the provision of approved premises for women prisoners when released on licence, where he said, at [65]: "What is req......
-
R Brian Dilks v The Secretary of State for Justice The National Probation Service (Interested Party)
...to a male facility. The actual increase in places overall is only five. iii) In R (Griffiths) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin) at [19], Cranston J noted the "high demand in male [APs]". iv) The lack of provision of APs has been recognised in a number of official do......
-
R (on the application of Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice
...comparing like with like. But he did declare that the Secretary of State had failed to discharge the public sector equality duty: [2013] EWHC 4077 (Admin). As he explained, at para 65: "What is required is that the Secretary of State address possible impacts, assessing whether there is a d......
-
AA + ORS v NHS Commissioning Board
...of the male and female offenders so that their cases were not comparable for the purpose of section 23 (para 22 above). Cranston J [2013] EWHC 4077 at [54] accepted that comparing the women prisoners with the men prisoners was not comparing like with like. The women had different characteri......