Matthew Wilson (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Matthew Wilson (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The recall decision was unlawful because the Secretary of State was not informed that the claimant denied being in a developing intimate relationship, rendering the recall report misleading and the process procedurally unfair. This procedural unfairness justified quashing the recall decision.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Wilson; First Defendant: National Probation Service; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; recall decision quashed; claimant released; damages claim adjourned.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Recall of Prisoners, Procedural Fairness, Proportionality, False Imprisonment
Public Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Recall of Prisoners Procedural Fairness Proportionality False Imprisonment

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Wilson

Claimant

National Probation Service

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to recall the claimant to custody was procedurally unfair and unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the recall decision was disproportionate or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider relevant evidence or alternatives to recall

Ratio Decidendi

The recall decision was unlawful because the Secretary of State was not informed that the claimant denied being in a developing intimate relationship, rendering the recall report misleading and the process procedurally unfair. This procedural unfairness justified quashing the recall decision.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; recall decision quashed; claimant released; damages claim adjourned.

Orders

  • The decision to recall the claimant to custody is quashed.
  • The claimant is to be released from custody.