Scarth (The Living Man) v Governor of HM Prison Armley & Anor [2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin) (26 August 2011)

Scarth (The Living Man) v Governor of HM Prison Armley & Anor [2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin) (26 August 2011)

There was no legal or evidential basis to conclude the claimant's imprisonment for contempt was unlawful or that his rights under the ECHR were breached; habeas corpus was refused, as were bail and the application to purge contempt.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Norman of the Family Scarth (The Living Man); First Defendant: Governor of HM Prison Armley; Second Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Bail Pending Appeal / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application for habeas corpus refused; application for bail pending appeal refused; application to purge contempt not entertained.
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Contempt of Court, Bail Pending Appeal, Article 6 ECHR, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 7 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Judicial Bias
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Contempt of Court Habeas Corpus Bail Pending Appeal Article 6 ECHR Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR +3 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 6 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman of the Family Scarth (The Living Man)

Claimant

Governor of HM Prison Armley

First Defendant

The Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Bail Pending Appeal / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's imprisonment for contempt was unlawful and justified the grant of habeas corpus
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's rights under Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 ECHR were breached
  3. 3 Whether bail pending appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal or evidential basis to conclude the claimant's imprisonment for contempt was unlawful or that his rights under the ECHR were breached; habeas corpus was refused, as were bail and the application to purge contempt.

Court Disposition

Application for habeas corpus refused; application for bail pending appeal refused; application to purge contempt not entertained.

Orders

  • Writ of habeas corpus refused
  • Bail pending appeal refused