Bannatyne, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

Bannatyne, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

There is no absolute right to a public hearing for prison disciplinary proceedings under Article 6 ECHR; Campbell and Fell remains authoritative, and practical considerations of security and public order justify private hearings. The adjudicator's reasoning was adequate given the narrow factual dispute and credibility assessment.

Parties
Claimant: Stephen Bannatyne; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: The Independent Adjudicator
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 6 ECHR, Public Hearing, Prison Disciplinary Proceedings, Criminal Vs Disciplinary Classification
Constitutional Law Human Rights Prison Law Article 6 ECHR Public Hearing Prison Disciplinary Proceedings Criminal Vs Disciplinary Classification

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Bannatyne

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

The Independent Adjudicator

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prisoner is entitled to a public hearing under Article 6 ECHR for prison disciplinary proceedings
  2. 2 Adequacy of adjudicator's reasoning
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's decision was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

There is no absolute right to a public hearing for prison disciplinary proceedings under Article 6 ECHR; Campbell and Fell remains authoritative, and practical considerations of security and public order justify private hearings. The adjudicator's reasoning was adequate given the narrow factual dispute and credibility assessment.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • application for judicial review refused
  • permission to appeal denied