Bary & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 587 (Admin) (19 March 2010)

Bary & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 587 (Admin) (19 March 2010)

The court found that the decision to change the regime was not irrational, unreasonable, or made for an illegitimate purpose; the regime was justified by legitimate security concerns, particularly regarding the risk of radicalisation and incitement by a high-profile detainee. The Article 3 ECHR threshold was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 587 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: Adel Abdul Bary and Others; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: The Governor of HMP Long Lartin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Prison Regimes, Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 8 ECHR (private and Family Life), Proportionality, Prisoner Rights, Mental Health in Detention
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review of Prison Regimes Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or Degrading Treatment) Article 8 ECHR (private and Family Life) Proportionality Prisoner Rights +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adel Abdul Bary and Others

Claimants

The Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

The Governor of HMP Long Lartin

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to change the detainee regime at HMP Long Lartin was irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate, or made for illegitimate aims under domestic public law principles
  2. 2 Whether the regime breached Article 3 ECHR rights of detainees with mental illness (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
  3. 3 Whether the regime breached Article 8 ECHR rights of all detainees (right to respect for private and family life)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the decision to change the regime was not irrational, unreasonable, or made for an illegitimate purpose; the regime was justified by legitimate security concerns, particularly regarding the risk of radicalisation and incitement by a high-profile detainee. The Article 3 ECHR threshold was not crossed for the mentally ill detainees, as the regime, while restrictive, did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The regime did interfere with Article 8 rights, but the interference was justified and proportionate in the circumstances, given the security risks and the efforts to mitigate the regime's impact. The regime was kept under review, and the reviews were...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed