Kenyon, R (on the application of) v HMP Wakefield & Anor [2012] EWHC 1259 (Admin) (22 March 2012)

Kenyon, R (on the application of) v HMP Wakefield & Anor [2012] EWHC 1259 (Admin) (22 March 2012)

The policy requiring prisoners to demonstrate a real need for IT facilities, defined as a real risk of prejudice in legal proceedings, is compatible with Article 6 ECHR. The claimant failed to show any ongoing or imminent legal proceedings or that refusal of IT facilities would prejudice his right to a fair trial. Both grounds of challenge were unarguable and lacked merit.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1259 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Glyn Kenyon; First Defendant: The Governor HMP Wakefield; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Amend, Permission to Proceed, and Substantive Judicial Review
Outcome
Applications to amend, for permission, and for permission out of time refused.
Legal Topics
Access to Justice, Article 6 ECHR, Prisoners' Rights, Judicial Review Procedure
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Access to Justice Article 6 ECHR Prisoners' Rights Judicial Review Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glyn Kenyon

Claimant

The Governor HMP Wakefield

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Amend, Permission to Proceed, and Substantive Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the policy on provision of laptops to prisoners is compatible with Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to provide the claimant with IT facilities breached his right to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The policy requiring prisoners to demonstrate a real need for IT facilities, defined as a real risk of prejudice in legal proceedings, is compatible with Article 6 ECHR. The claimant failed to show any ongoing or imminent legal proceedings or that refusal of IT facilities would prejudice his right to a fair trial. Both grounds of challenge were unarguable and lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Applications to amend, for permission, and for permission out of time refused.

Orders

  • Permission to amend grounds refused.
  • Permission to proceed on both grounds refused.