Craig’s (James Junior McKinstry) Application

JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
JudgeStephens J
Judgment Date31 March 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] NIQB 45
Date31 March 2010
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
Year2010
- 1 -
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIQB 45 Ref:
STE7784
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
9-4-10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
______
Craig’s (James Junior McKinstry) Application [2010] NIQB 45
________
AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY
JAMES JUNIOR McKINSTRY CRAIG
______
STEPHENS J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, James Junior McKinstry Craig, is a prisoner at
Maghaberry Prison, serving a life sentence for murder. He undertakes work
in prison for which he is paid. In these proceedings he challenges the
provisions of the Prison Service policy adopted in April 2008 in relation to the
use of prisoners’ money which policy restricts the passing of monies out of
the prison by prisoners and he also challenges a decision of Governor Jeanes
made on 30 July 2008 whereby, pursuant to the terms of the policy, he was
refused permission to pass money out of the prison to his daughter. On closer
analysis it transpires that the challenge is to two decisions of Governor
Kennedy made on 28 July 2008 and 13 October 2009 rather than to the
decision of Governor Jeanes.
[2] The application for leave to apply for judicial review was adjourned, it
being perceived that the judicial review application brought by Ralph
Phillips, which also challenged the validity of the Prison Service policy
adopted in April 2008, would determine the application in this case.
Judgment was delivered by Morgan LCJ in Phillips’ Application [2009] NIQB 64
on 30 June 2009 dismissing the challenge to the policy. However factually
and in summary this case differs from Phillips’ application in that the money
which the applicant wishes to pass out of the prison is earned by the applicant
in prison whereas in Phillips’ Application the money had been passed into the
prison to him. The applicant contends that money earned in prison, as
opposed to money passed into the prison, is treated differently in the Prison
- 2 -
Rules and furthermore that he did not have the facility, as Phillips did, of
diverting money to his daughter by the device of requesting those who were
to pay money into the prison, instead to give that money to his daughter. In
the event, Phillips’ Application was not determinative of this application and
Weatherup J granted the applicant leave to apply for judicial review on 11
September 2009.
[3] Mr Scoffield appeared on behalf of the applicant and Ms Murnaghan
appeared on behalf of the respondent. I am indebted to both counsel for their
careful preparation of the case and their well-marshalled written and oral
submissions.
The policy
[4] The policy is contained in a document headed “Inmates Personal Cash
Accounts”. It was sent by the Deputy Director, Head of Operations, Max
Murray, to amongst others all governors on 15 April 2008. The new
arrangement contained in the policy came into effect on 14 April 2008.
Paragraph 1 provides that no external money will be accepted to an Inmate’s
Personal Cash Account where the amount in the account is in excess of £500
though prisoners’ earnings will continue to be credited to the account. The
portion of the policy dealing with the payment out of monies provides as
follows:-
“The passing out of any money by a prisoner should
only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. It is
likely that any such cases will be minimal. The
prisoner must make a request in writing to the
governor who will consider the request on its merits.
Reasons of family occasions, such as birthdays,
christenings, communion or confirmations will be not
be a sufficient reason to pass money out. The Prison
Service is currently progressing work on introducing
a voucher scheme which will be available through
tuck shops. Prisoners will be able to purchase gift
vouchers and post them out for such occasions.”
[5] Paragraph 5 of the policy is headed “Governor’s discretion in cases of
genuine hardship”. It gives and considers one example of genuine hardship
and concludes with the following:-
“There will undoubtedly be other issues that arise as
the new arrangements are progressed. These will
have to be discussed and agreed while maintaining a
level of oversight and management of the

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT