Uddin, R (on the application of) v Governor of HMP Lincoln & Anor

Uddin, R (on the application of) v Governor of HMP Lincoln & Anor

The challenge to the lawfulness of PSI 20/2015 is not arguable as the policy does not mandate cell sharing in breach of Article 3 ECHR and provides for healthcare exceptions. The damages claim should proceed as part of the ongoing private law claim, not by judicial review, and the defendants are not responsible for the claimant's healthcare under the relevant statutory framework.

Parties
Claimant: Shammus Uddin; First Defendant: Governor of HMP Lincoln; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Seek Judicial Review After Refusal on the Papers
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prisoner Rights, Article 3 ECHR, Policy Lawfulness, Damages for Inhuman Treatment
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review Prisoner Rights Article 3 ECHR Policy Lawfulness Damages for Inhuman Treatment

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shammus Uddin

Claimant

Governor of HMP Lincoln

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Seek Judicial Review After Refusal on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PSI 20/2015 (Cell Sharing Risk Assessment policy) is unlawful for exposing prisoners with PTSD to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether judicial review is the appropriate forum for the claimant's damages claim for alleged failures in diagnosis and treatment of PTSD
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were responsible for the claimant's healthcare and alleged failures in diagnosis/treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The challenge to the lawfulness of PSI 20/2015 is not arguable as the policy does not mandate cell sharing in breach of Article 3 ECHR and provides for healthcare exceptions. The damages claim should proceed as part of the ongoing private law claim, not by judicial review, and the defendants are not responsible for the claimant's healthcare under the relevant statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.