Court of Session: Murderer’s prison conditions fair

22 January 2016 by

Hands v Scottish Ministers [2016] CSOH 9, 15th January 2016 – read judgment

The Outer House of the Court of Session has refused a petition for judicial review brought by a convicted murderer against decisions made by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about his prison conditions and supervision level.

The Facts

Brian Hands was convicted of murder in February 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment. When the punishment part of his sentence expired, the SPS decreased his supervision requirements from medium to low and upgraded him from closed conditions to ‘national top end’ conditions (allowing him to go on community placements and family visits). In August 2014, the petitioner began a work placement in a carpet store with a view to moving to open conditions in early 2015. However, a recorded telephone conversation in which the petitioner had referred to ‘Rangers tops’ (a common name for blue valium tablets) caused the SPS to believe that he was involved in the introduction and distribution of illicit substances within the prison. Evidence from the carpet store suggested that the petitioner had used a mobile phone contrary to the conditions of the placement. Following a hearing in October 2014 it was decided that the petitioner would be downgraded to closed conditions and that his supervision requirements would be increased from low to medium.

The Petitioner’s Arguments

Hands argued that the decision-making procedure was unfair, and therefore the decisions to return him to closed conditions and increase his supervision requirements were unlawful. The respondents were under a common law duty to act fairly, particularly when carrying out a function which affected the liberty of persons affected by their decision.

A number of complaints were made about the decision-making process, including a failure to comply with the relevant prison rules, inadequate disclosure of information relating to the decisions, vague allegations, a failure to properly investigate the circumstances surrounding the decisions, a lack of adequate reasons, a failure to obtain and consider representations from the petitioner, and a lack of proper analysis of the evidence. When considered together, it was evident that the petitioner did not have a fair hearing at all.

The Judgment

The judge rejected these arguments, finding that the respondents had satisfied the procedural requirements imposed on them. Looking at the procedure as a whole, it was not “actually unfair”.

The allegation of a breach of the prison rules related to rule 21(4) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011. Rule 21(4) provided that in relation to decisions about a prisoner’s supervision level, the governor of the prison must consider any representations made by the prisoner. Pointing to a form signed by the governor which, it was alleged, confirmed the decision to change his supervision arrangements, Hands argued that he had been unable to make representations. However, this argument misunderstood the nature of the form. The governor had merely indicated the supervision level which he was “minded to assign” and had left it open to the petitioner to make representations before a final decision was made. Hands had subsequently refused to make representations on the misguided assumption that a decision had already been made and that any representations would amount to mitigation only. The latter claim made no sense as the decision to change the petitioner’s supervision level could not be mitigated.

In relation to the petitioner’s complaint about a lack of disclosure and the vagueness of the case against him, the judge observed that there were specific allegations against Hands. It was alleged that he had discussed ‘Rangers tops’ during a telephone conversation and that he had access to a mobile phone during his placement. When these allegations were put to the petitioner at the hearing, he could have provided an explanation for them. He had subsequently argued that his cousin had purchased football strips from an auction but this explanation was not provided at the time. The allegation that he had used a mobile phone at the carpet store was either true or untrue. The petitioner claimed that it was untrue. This was his defence and he presented it. No further disclosure was required and no greater clarity could be provided.

The petitioner’s other complaints were also dismissed. It was unnecessary for the respondents to investigate the drugs allegation further as they proceeded on the basis of the evidence taken from the petitioner’s telephone conversation for which an explanation was not provided at the time. The basis of the decisions to downgrade the petitioner and increase his supervision levels was clear with no lack of plain and intelligible reasons.

Finally, the argument that there was no proper analysis of the evidence was, in effect, a challenge to the substance of the respondent’s decisions. It was not open to the petitioner to make such a challenge in judicial review proceedings and, in any event, the respondents were entitled to reach the conclusions they did on the evidence before them.

There was no dispute in this case over the relevant common law principles. It was accepted that the respondents were under a duty to act fairly and that the requirements of procedural fairness were context specific. Nor was there any real dispute between the parties as to what fairness required in this particular case. In the end, the case turned on what were essentially factual issues regarding the procedure that had been followed with the court dismissing various complaints as unfounded.

by Thomas Raine

1 comment;


  1. Murderers in prisons are treated very well compared with children taken into care.They are allowed to phone out to relatives and to discuss their cases with family and other visitors.
    Children in the 7-12 sort of age group who are taken from their parents by police and social workers are put into fostercare with strangers and then have their mobile phones and laptops/tablets confiscated to isolate them from family and friends.
    When parents are eventually allowed contact visits the children and also their parents are forbidden to discuss their cases,coming home,or any criticism of those who have removed them .
    Yes murderers in prisons are treated much better than children taken into State care !

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


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 care homes 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 consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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 Facial Recognition 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 home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit 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: