MA, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2021] EWHC 1266 (Admin) (14 May 2021)

MA, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2021] EWHC 1266 (Admin) (14 May 2021)

The prohibition on written correspondence between the claimant and her spouse was unlawful as it breached PSI 49/2011 and was not justified by a genuine threat to security or good order. However, the ongoing prohibition on telephone contact and inter-prison visits was not unlawful: the defendants' decisions were within their discretion under the Prison Rules and relevant policies, and the interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate given the significant risks identified. The challenge to the earlier prohibition on correspondence was not out of time, but the challenge to telephone and visit restrictions was not excluded for delay. No damages were awarded as the...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1266 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: MA; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Governor of HMP Whatton; Third Defendant: Governor of HMP Stafford; Interested Party: MB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Prisoner Communication, Proportionality, Prison Rules 1999, Human Rights Act 1998, Judicial Review, Prison Policy Compliance
Public Law Human Rights Prison Law Article 8 ECHR Prisoner Communication Proportionality Prison Rules 1999 Human Rights Act 1998 +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Governor of HMP Whatton

Second Defendant

Governor of HMP Stafford

Third Defendant

MB

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prohibition on inter-prison visits and telephone contact between the claimant and her spouse breaches Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the prohibition breaches relevant prison policy and constitutes a public law error
  3. 3 Whether the challenge is out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on written correspondence between the claimant and her spouse was unlawful as it breached PSI 49/2011 and was not justified by a genuine threat to security or good order. However, the ongoing prohibition on telephone contact and inter-prison visits was not unlawful: the defendants' decisions were within their discretion under the Prison Rules and relevant policies, and the interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate given the significant risks identified. The challenge to the earlier prohibition on correspondence was not out of time, but the challenge to telephone and visit restrictions was not excluded for delay. No damages were awarded as the...

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the prohibition on written correspondence between the claimant and her spouse was unlawful
  • Claim for mandatory orders and damages dismissed