MA, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors

MA, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors

The prohibition on telephone contact and inter-prison visits between the Claimant and the Interested Party was an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and not justified under Article 8(2); less restrictive measures were available. The outright ban on inter-prison visits also breached published prison policy. The claim regarding written correspondence was dismissed as moot and out of time.

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
Claim allowed in part; restrictions on telephone contact and inter-prison visits declared unlawful; claim regarding written correspondence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Prisoner Communication, Family Life, Proportionality, Prison Policy Compliance
Human Rights Prison Law Administrative Law Article 8 ECHR Prisoner Communication Family Life Proportionality Prison Policy Compliance

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 prohibition on telephone contact and inter-prison visits breaches Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether prohibition breaches relevant prison policy
  3. 3 Whether claim is out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on telephone contact and inter-prison visits between the Claimant and the Interested Party was an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights and not justified under Article 8(2); less restrictive measures were available. The outright ban on inter-prison visits also breached published prison policy. The claim regarding written correspondence was dismissed as moot and out of time.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; restrictions on telephone contact and inter-prison visits declared unlawful; claim regarding written correspondence dismissed.

Orders

  • Declarations that restrictions on telephone contact and inter-prison visits were unlawful under Article 8 ECHR and in breach of policy
  • No mandatory orders for contact; Defendants to reassess conditions for contact