Scarth (The Living Man) v Governor of HM Prison Armley & Anor

Scarth (The Living Man) v Governor of HM Prison Armley & Anor

There was no evidential basis to conclude that the claimant's detention was unlawful or that his Convention rights were breached. The contempt proceedings and sentence were lawfully conducted, and habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy for complaints about prison conditions. Bail was refused as the appeal would be heard shortly and no exceptional circumstances were shown. The application to purge contempt should be made to the original trial judge or the Court of Appeal, not the High Court.

Parties
Claimant: Norman of the Family Scarth (the Living Man); First Defendant: Governor of HM Prison Armley; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Habeas Corpus Application / Judgment on Application for Habeas Corpus, Bail, and Purging Contempt
Outcome
Application for habeas corpus refused; application for bail refused; application to purge contempt declined.
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 Constitutional Law Habeas Corpus Contempt of Court Bail Pending Appeal Article 6 ECHR Article 2 ECHR +4 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman of the Family Scarth (the Living Man)

Claimant

Governor of HM Prison Armley

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Habeas Corpus Application / Judgment on Application for Habeas Corpus, Bail, and Purging Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's detention was unlawful and warrants a writ 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 evidential basis to conclude that the claimant's detention was unlawful or that his Convention rights were breached. The contempt proceedings and sentence were lawfully conducted, and habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy for complaints about prison conditions. Bail was refused as the appeal would be heard shortly and no exceptional circumstances were shown. The application to purge contempt should be made to the original trial judge or the Court of Appeal, not the High Court.

Court Disposition

Application for habeas corpus refused; application for bail refused; application to purge contempt declined.

Orders

  • Writ of habeas corpus refused
  • Bail pending appeal refused