Hopkins, R (on the application of) v Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield & Ors

Hopkins, R (on the application of) v Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield & Ors

The intimate relationship restriction was lawful and enforceable as it was necessary for prison order and discipline, did not require a statutory instrument, was applied with consideration of claimant's needs, and did not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR or Equality Act 2010; reasonable steps were taken to accommodate claimant's disability.

Parties
Claimant: Michelle Hopkins; 1st Defendant: Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield; 2nd Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: Stephanie Hopkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Prison Discipline, Disability Discrimination, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Reasonable Adjustments, Policy Flexibility, Statutory Instruments
Prison Law Human Rights Equality Law Prison Discipline Disability Discrimination Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Reasonable Adjustments +2 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Hopkins

Claimant

Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield

1st Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

2nd Defendant

Stephanie Hopkins

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intimate relationship restriction was enforceable without statutory instrument under Prison Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the restriction was unlawfully inflexible and failed to consider individual circumstances
  3. 3 Whether Article 3 ECHR rights were engaged and infringed

Ratio Decidendi

The intimate relationship restriction was lawful and enforceable as it was necessary for prison order and discipline, did not require a statutory instrument, was applied with consideration of claimant's needs, and did not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR or Equality Act 2010; reasonable steps were taken to accommodate claimant's disability.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed