R (E) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr JUSTICE FORBES,MR JUSTICE FORBES |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1731 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4552/2007 |
| Date | 21 June 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 1731 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Forbes
CO/4552/2007
MR S CRAGG (instructed by Birnberg Peirce and Partners) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR A SHARLAND (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Introduction
This is an application for appropriate relief by way of judicial review in respect of the defendant's decision (i) to locate the claimant at HMP Bronzefield and (ii) to treat the claimant in a manner that allegedly interferes with her right to a fair trial. A further matter is no longer pursued.
The claimant currently faces trial at the Central Criminal Court. It is said that the arrangements for transporting her between prison and court means that she is exhausted, constantly nauseous and unable concentrate when she arrives for the day's hearing. In addition, it is said that she is produced at court either shortly before the start of the hearing or after the scheduled start so that her ability to provide instructions to her lawyers is severely reduced. Accordingly, the issues that arise in the claim are (i) whether the treatment of the claimant amounts to a violation of her rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR") and/or (ii) whether the treatment of the claimant amounts to a violation of her common law right to a fair trial.
The factual background
As I have already indicated, the claimant is a defendant in a trial currently being held at the Central Criminal Court. She is charged with withholding information, contrary to section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000. The trial itself commenced on Wednesday 23 May 2007 and is scheduled to last for five weeks. The claimant is due to give evidence and to be subjected to cross-examination. It is anticipated that this will occur at some date either on or very shortly after 20 June 2007.
The claimant is presently detained as a "restricted status" prisoner at HMP Bronzefield. HMP Bronzefield is located in Ashford, Middlesex. It opened in 2004 and is administered by a private company, United Kingdom Detention Services. It is said that until HMP Bronzefield opened, almost all women prisoners facing trial at the Central Criminal Court would have been detained at HMP Holloway. As it happens, the Prison Service website describes the reception criteria for Holloway in the following terms:
"All adult and young offenders remanded or sentenced by the courts with the exception of Category A."
The claimant's categorisation and general circumstances are fully explained by Mr Gary Nicholls ("Mr Nicholls"), the Head of Operations and Casework within the Directorate of High Security, in paragraphs 4 to 16 of his witness statement dated 19 June 2007, the material terms of which are as follows:
"4. PSO 900 sets out the classification arrangements for male prisoners. PSO 900 applied in relation to female prisoners up until 2005. In 2005, a new regime for the classification of female prisoners was introduced and in this respect PSO 900 is in the process of being updated. For female prisoners there are three levels of categorisation, namely restricted status prisoners, those prisoners within closed conditions and those prisoners within open conditions.
5. The restricted status system has been running for a period within the Male Young Offender Estate and the National Security Framework describes restricted status prisoners for the purposes of young offenders as follows:—
'Offenders sentenced to detention at a Young Offender Institution whose escape would present a serious risk to the public and who are required to be held in designated secure accommodation.'
6. This same standard is applied in determining whether a particular female prisoner should be categorised as restricted status.
7. HMP Bronzefield was opened in 2004 and when the new system of categorisation was introduced in 2005 for female prisoners, HMP Bronzefield was assessed and designated as being suitable to hold all restricted status female prisoners, as it is the most secure establishment within the female estate. More lately HMP Low Newton has been approved to hold female restricted status prisoners. HMP Low Newton is located in the north of England. There are currently seven restricted status prisoners, all of whom are held at HMP Bronzefield in a separate unit.
8. HMP Holloway has never been used to hold restricted status prisoners. This is because it does not meet the required security standard due to the fabric of the buildings and staffing levels. HMP Holloway is not an appropriate prison to locate the claimant at due to her categorisation. HMP Holloway is an old prison, which has not been assessed as being suitable to house restricted status female prisoners. HMP Holloway did hold the occasional Category A prisoner many years ago, but since that time improved security facilities offered by more modern prisons such as HMP Bronzefield have come on stream.
9. Prior to the introduction of the new categorisation regime for female prisoners all category A women prisoners were held in a special unit within HMP Durham, which was at that time a male high security prison. If there ever was a need for those prisoners to attend courts in London they would be held in a wing in isolation within HMP Belmarsh. This would be by special arrangement and would require the particular wing used to house that particular prisoner to be emptied of all male prisoners who would be located elsewhere within the establishment. That female prisoner would be located by herself on that wing. However, this was prior to HMP Bronzefield being used to house restricted status female prisoners."
I interpolate at this stage to indicate that I have been told that it was no later than the early 1990s that category A female prisoners were, on occasions, located in HMP Holloway. I am also told that this happened on very few occasions because there were very few category A females. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that the male high security prison, HMP Belmarsh, is at approximately the same distance from the Central Criminal Court as HMP Bronzefield.
I continue with Mr Nicholls' witness statement at paragraph 10:
"10. HMP Belmarsh would not be appropriate to accommodate a female prisoner at this time due to the availability of accommodation at HMP Bronzefield. Further it would require an area of a wing to be emptied of male prisoners at a time of extremely high prisoner numbers. Effectively the whole wing would have to be staffed for one female prisoner the cost of which is prohibitive and there is the added difficulty of finding alternative places for the male category A prisoners who would have to be moved out.
11. The restricted status regime recognises that such prisoners do not require the very highest standards of security whilst in a secure environment. However, due to the risk posed to the public, they would require high levels of category A security whilst outside of the establishment, such as when they are being transported to and from court.
12. In terms of locating prisoners within police cells as an alternative whilst the trial is ongoing, there is no precedent for such a system. There have been occasions when prisoners have been lodged over-night when travelling times have been outside the accepted timescales but this only applies to overnight stops.
13. In this matter we have considered all options and there is no alternative but to locate the claimant at HMP Bronzefield for the reasons explained above.
14. In terms of the issue of travelling time taken to transport the claimant to court, the summary grounds of resistance confirms that the claimant's journey generally takes between one hour fifteen minutes and one hour and forty minutes. The distance from HMP Bronzefield to the Central Criminal Court is approximately twenty miles. HMP Bronzefield is located in Ashford in Middlesex, south of Heathrow Airport. I detail below the time taken to transport the claimant to court from 4 June onwards, as follows:
4 June 2006—07.46 to 09.20—1 hour and 34 minutes.
5 June 2007—07.35 to 09.05—1 hour and 30 minutes.
6 June 2007—08.00 to 09.50—1 hour and 50 minutes.
7 June 2007—08.01 to 09.40—1 hour and 39 minutes.
8 June 2007—08.00 to 09.15—1 hour and 15 minutes.
11 June 2007—07.50 to 09.50—2 hours.
12 June 2007—07.35 to 10.15—2 hours and 40 minutes.
13 June 2007—07.45 to 09.45—2 hours.
14 June 2007—07.35 to 10.05—2 hours and 30 minutes.
15 June 2007—07.28 to 09.25—1 hour and 57 minutes …
16. In terms of the claimant's categorisation this involves assessing the risk presented by an individual prisoner and the standard applied is detailed in paragraph 5. In reaching a conclusion account is taken of the particular charges faced by the individual concerned and any information provided to us by outside agencies, such as the Police. In this instance the claimant is facing certain terrorist charges. Further, Counter Terrorist command recommended to us that the claimant should be placed in the highest category, namely restricted status due to evidence of her links to explosives, martyrdom, jihad and evidence of a farewell letter written to her husband. On this basis the claimant was categorised as restricted status."
It is the claimant's case that having to travel between prison and court in the high security van, with cramped conditions and limited windows, has caused her to suffer from dreadful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sangodele's Application (Amos)
... ... he had in his possession a key ring containing both the keys to his home and the front door of the shop. Mr McBriar described the applicant as ... Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWHC 3208 (Admin) – ... ...
-
R (Muhid) v Secretary of State for Justice
...1 WLR 1408, Webster J, whose judgment on the point was approved by Forbes J in R (E) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1731 (Admin), stated that the exercise of the Secretary of State's power under section 12, although reviewable, is very wide. He said: “… it is undes......