Restrictions on books in prisons declared unlawful by the High Court

11 December 2014 by

Cornerstone-bookshopR (on the application of Gordon-Jones) v Secretary of State for Justice and Governor of HM Prison Send [2014] EWHC 3997 (Admin)read judgment

Contrary to what some media reports would have us believe, Prison Service Instruction (“PSI”) 30/2013 did not impose an absolute ban on books in prisons. It did, however, impose severe restrictions on the possession or acquisition of books which a prisoner can treat as his or her own. The High Court has found that those restrictions could not be justified by the limited provision of prison library services and are therefore unlawful.

The Claimant is a prisoner serving an indefinite sentence for the protection of the public at HMP Send. She has a doctorate in English literature and a serious passion for reading. The books she wants to read are often not the sort which are required by fellow prisoners or readily available through the prison library (the Dialogues of Marcus Aurelius and Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, for example, crop up in the judgment) and she therefore relies on having books sent or brought to her by people outside the prison.

Her entitlement to do so was severely curtailed by the new PSI, which introduced a number of changes to the Incentives and Earned Privileges (“IEP”) scheme. The aim of that scheme is and has always been to encourage responsible behaviour, effort and achievement in work and other constructive activity, and participation in courses and activities designed to reduce reoffending. The changes were expressly intended to “strengthen and support efforts to reduce reoffending and rehabilitate prisoners as well as giving the public greater confidence in the prison system”.

However, despite ministerial comments about the importance of reading and learning as a critical part of rehabilitation, paragraph 10.4 of the new PSI imposed a virtual ban on prisoners receiving items, including books, by post or from visitors except in exceptional circumstances. Annex F provided that each prisoner may have a maximum of 12 books in his or her possession. Prisoners could still purchase books via Amazon but, with a basic maximum weekly allowance of £4, this was not likely to be a realistic option for many. They could also borrow books from the prison library but, as Collins J recognised, “at some prisons access and content leave much to be desired”.

The Claimant’s challenge

Paragraph 10.4 itself stated that these restrictions were intended “to ensure that the IEP scheme is not undermined”. Elsewhere, however, the primary reason given for the restrictions was security. In an open letter to the Poet Laureate, the first Defendant had suggested that to treat books as privilege items which must be earned would be “wholly wrong”, but justified the policy by reference to the “logical impossibility” of checking all parcels in sufficient detail to avoid any smuggling of drugs or contraband. Reference was also made to a comment by the Deputy Prime Minister that a ban on sending books to prisoners would be “ridiculous” and “outrageous”, but that the restrictions were really “about making sure the security arrangements around packages delivered to prisoners are applied consistently across the prison estates”.

The Claimant accepted the need to have regard to security considerations. She also accepted the need for an overall limit on the volume of prisoners’ possessions, and for a reasonable restriction on the number of parcels a prisoner can receive. What she did not accept was the imposition of a virtual ban on receiving books. While the Governor had a discretion to allow receipt of items in exceptional circumstances, books were not included in the list of examples in paragraph 10.4 and were apparently not regarded as falling within the “exceptional” category (a request for five books made by the Claimant on 8 April 2014 was rejected “as per the new facilities list” in the PSI).

The Claimant argued that, even accepting the first Defendant’s concerns about security, it was difficult to see how it could be reasonable to prevent someone such as her solicitor bringing in books. Presumably, such a person would already be searched upon entering the prison.

She further criticised the 12 book limit as arbitrary, unnecessary and irrational. This submission was not affected by a new discretion of the Governor to extend the limit in individual cases (hastily added to the PSI part-way through the hearing in response to a comment by Collins J) since there was no good reason for any limit at all on the number of books a prisoner can have in his or her possession, subject to the accepted overall limit on volume.

The Claimant also highlighted the inadequacy of library facilities in some prisons, often due to staff shortages. While all of the books which the Claimant had requested from the library at HMP Send had in fact been obtained for her, this was unlikely to be the reality for every prisoner who requests an unusual book from a financially stretched prison library.

The judgment

Collins J’s conclusions were brief but robust. He found that the restrictions, insofar as they applied to books, were unlawful. The availability of books through prison libraries was insufficient due to problems with access, content and availability of library books. The effect of the policy was therefore contrary to the first Defendant’s stated intention to ensure that access to books, which he recognised were important for rehabilitation, was not restricted. It also failed to recognise the importance of possessing particular books to be used for reference, to be reread or dipped into frequently. Collins J said at paragraph 38 that:

see no good reason in the light of the importance of books for prisoners to restrict beyond what is required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to the frequency of parcels and security considerations.

He then dealt shortly with the remaining aspects of the challenge. The policy merely guided the exercise of the Governor’s discretion to allow receipt of articles through the post, as it was entitled to do, and did not fetter that discretion. Article 8 ECHR added nothing and would in any case be difficult to apply in the circumstances. There had been no breach of the public sector equality duty, since the Equality Impact Assessment produced was adequate and regard was had to all relevant issues. The claim against the second Defendant failed, since he was bound to act in accordance with the policy and did not act unlawfully by doing so.

Possible implications

The decision has been rightly hailed as a major victory by organisations like the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust. A report by the Trust, cited by Collins J at paragraph 21 and available here, highlighted the negative impact of the restrictions not only in respect of books but also of other basic items such as writing materials, stamps, warm clothes, underwear and small gifts from family members. While stamped-addressed envelopes and replacement clothing are both included in paragraph 10.4 as potential examples of “exceptional circumstances”, anecdotal evidence in the report suggests that these items are not being allowed in practice. Collins J made clear that his judgment related only to books and that he had not considered these wider criticisms (paragraph 39), but his comment at paragraph 21 is telling:

Overall, the IEP as now operated seems to fail to recognise that it is deprivation of liberty that is the penalty imposed and that any further restrictions must be fully justified.”

This suggests that he, at least, would require strong justification for the restrictions in respect of other items in any future claim.

Hannah Noyce is a 3rd Six pupil at 1 Crown Office Row

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

2 comments


  1. Sam says:

    The PSED point was a bit more complicated. In drafting the ground I saw how the eia failed to deal with disability but the judge felt the policy dealt with it sufficiently. I can understand his view on this point but I still view the failure to mitigate in line with Griffith’s and Coll v SSJ. Then again I am often very stubborn on equality act points.

  2. jhturnbull says:

    So they they can tale your body but they cannot take your mind and get you things to read (I like seeing the rulebooks & instructions first). All these rights not accorded to people that have done no harm but because of illogical ‘opinion’ detained and chemically thought-modified without proper judicial process under mental health act procedures. Better to be in prison – rules, rights.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration Immigration/Extradition immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraq War Ireland islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland legal aid legal aid cuts legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberty library closures Libya licence conditions life sentence lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical negligence medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis military Milly Dowler Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder music Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London Offensive Speech oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution Personal Injury personality rights perversity PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police powers police state police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings post office power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation Radmacher Ramsgate rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg sumption super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: