Gourlay, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2016] EWHC 1957 (Admin) (29 July 2016)

Gourlay, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2016] EWHC 1957 (Admin) (29 July 2016)

There was no breach of public law or Article 5 ECHR duties by the defendants. The duty is to provide a reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation, not to guarantee progression or to create bespoke courses for every category of prisoner. The evidence showed ongoing review and development of programmes for deniers, and the claimant was offered all appropriate interventions. The absence of a specific course for deniers or the availability of certain community programmes did not render the system or the claimant's treatment unlawful or irrational. The claimant was not denied a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself; the impasse resulted from his own stance of categorical denial and...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1957 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Gourlay; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Sodexo Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Article 5 ECHR, Rehabilitation of Prisoners, Provision of Offending Behaviour Programmes, Denial of Offending, Systemic and Individual Duties
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Judicial Review Article 5 ECHR Rehabilitation of Prisoners Provision of Offending Behaviour Programmes Denial of Offending +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gourlay

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Sodexo Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached public law and Article 5 ECHR duties by failing to provide the claimant, a life sentence prisoner in denial of sexual offending, with a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate and demonstrate risk reduction for progression and release.
  2. 2 Whether there is a systemic failure to provide suitable offending behaviour programmes for prisoners in denial, and whether the claimant's individual treatment amounted to a breach of duty.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of public law or Article 5 ECHR duties by the defendants. The duty is to provide a reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation, not to guarantee progression or to create bespoke courses for every category of prisoner. The evidence showed ongoing review and development of programmes for deniers, and the claimant was offered all appropriate interventions. The absence of a specific course for deniers or the availability of certain community programmes did not render the system or the claimant's treatment unlawful or irrational. The claimant was not denied a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself; the impasse resulted from his own stance of categorical denial and...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No breach of public law or Article 5 ECHR duties found