Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [20081 EWHC 3298 (Admin) (11 December 2008)

Allen, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [20081 EWHC 3298 (Admin) (11 December 2008)

There is no arguable case that the claimant was entitled to prior notice or opportunity to make representations before being classified as EER; the regime, while intrusive, does not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR on the facts; the challenge is premature and permission for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[1985] AC 374
Parties
Claimant: Paul Raymond Allen; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Governor of HMP Belmarsh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Prisoner Classification, Judicial Review Procedure, Fairness in Administrative Decisions, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 3 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Disclosure Obligations
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Prisoner Classification Judicial Review Procedure Fairness in Administrative Decisions Human Rights Act 1998 Article 3 ECHR +4 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Raymond Allen

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Governor of HMP Belmarsh

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was denied procedural fairness in being reclassified as an Exceptional Escape Risk (EER) without prior notice or opportunity to make representations
  2. 2 Whether the EER regime and its intrusive measures breached the claimant's human rights under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether there is an arguable case for judicial review of the EER classification decision

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable case that the claimant was entitled to prior notice or opportunity to make representations before being classified as EER; the regime, while intrusive, does not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR on the facts; the challenge is premature and permission for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for permission for judicial review is refused.
  • Order for expedited transcript granted.