R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Duggan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1993 |
| Date | 03 December 1993 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice McKinnon
Prisons - judicial review - fairness to category A prisoners - right to information and reasons
A high security risk prisoner in category A was entitled, subject to necessary exceptions arising from public interest immunity, to be informed, prior to any annual review of his security classification, of the gist of any matter of fact or opinion relevant to the determination of that security category and to be given reasons for any decision which resulted in him remaining a category A prisoner.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held, granting an application by J W Duggan, a category A prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, for judicial review of the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to disclose to him the gist of the reports which had led to a decision in February 1993 that he should continue to be classified as a category A prisoner, or to give reasons for that decision.
Mr Tim Owen for the applicant; Mr Stephen Richards for the secretary of state.
LORD JUSTICE ROSE said that category A prisoners were those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, the police or to the security of the state, no matter how unlikely that escape might be, and for whom the aim had to be to make escape impossible.
Since by definition they were regarded as highly dangerous if at large, they could not properly be regarded by the Parole Board as suitable for release on licence.
A review of category A prisoners was normally carried out annually by the category A section, who were provided with information about the circumstances of the offence for which the prisoner had been sentenced and his history, reports from the holding prison, information from the police and intelligence from other agencies, and accounts of operational incidents and security implications.
Most of the information consisted of written "category A reports" but some was communicated orally. Prisoners concerned were permitted to make representations to the section.
Where the holding prison or the section recommended a change of category, or where no change had been recommended for five years, the case was referred to the category A committee.
The secretary of state by his certificate asserted that such information and reports belonged to a class which in the public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Hassett and Another v The Secretary of State for Justice
...without his suitability for release first being tested in more open conditions as a Category B, C or D prisoner: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Duggan [1994] 3 All ER 277 (DC), 280 and 288; R (Williams) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 498;......
- HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd v Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia (No 2)
-
R (on Application of L) v West London Mental Health Nhs Trust Partnerships in Care (First Interested Party) The Secretary of State for Health (Second Interested Party)
...law procedural fairness were engaged by the decision to admit the Claimant to Broadmoor applying the approach in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Duggan [1994] [3 All ER 277] and R (Mohammed Ali) v Director of High Security [2009] [EWHC 1732] (Admin). That was for tw......
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Harry