Secretary of State for Justice v Paul Black
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master of the Rolls,Lord Justice McCombe,Lord Justice David Richards |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 125 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2015/1018 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 March 2016 |
Court of Appeal
The smoking ban imposed by Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006 did not expressly or by necessary implication apply to the Crown. In consequence state-run prisons were not obliged to implement the ban.
The Court of Appeal so held, allowing the appeal of the Secretary of State for Justice from the decision of Mr Justice SinghWLR ([2015] 1 WLR 3963) that the claimant, Paul Black, a serving prisoner, was entitled to access to an NHS smoke-free compliance line to report breaches of the smoking ban in prison confidentially and anonymously, because the Crown was bound by the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act.
Mr James Eadie, QC and Mr David Pievsky for the Justice Secretary; Mr Philip Havers, QC and Ms Shaheen Rahman for the claimant.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the issue was whether Part 1 of the Health Act 2006, which contained prohibitions on smoking in certain places and introduced various mechanisms to enforce such prohibitions, applied to Crown premises, and in particular whether it applied to HM Priso n Wymott, a state-run prison where the claimant was detained.
The basic, long established rule was that no statute bound the Crown unless (i) there was an express provision to that effect; or (ii) that was the necessary implication of the legislation. There was no express provision, but the judge held that the Crown was bound by Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 200 6 act by necessary implication and quashed the Justice Secretary's decision to refuse to provide confidential and anonymous access at HM Prison Wymott to the NHS smoke-free compliance line.
Necessary implication was a strict test, not least because nothing was easier than to provide expressly that the statute was binding on the Crown. The test could be satisfied if the statutory purpose would be wholly frustrated were the Crown not to be bound by its terms: see Province of Bom bay v Municipal Corporation of the City of BombayELR ([1947] AC 58).
It was the expectation that the Crown would generally act conscientiously in the public interest (and be subject to judicial review on the usual public law grounds) which usually led the court to conclude that the statutory purpose would not be wholly frustrated.
The purpose of the 2006 act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice
...Hale, President Lord Mance, Deputy President Lord Kerr Lord Hughes Lord Lloyd-Jones THE SUPREME COURT Michaelmas Term On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 125 Appellant Philip Havers Shaheen Rahman QC (Instructed by Leigh Day) Respondent James Eadie QC David Pievsky (Instructed by The Government......