Hopkins, R (on the application of) v Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield & Ors [2016] EWHC 606 (Admin) (21 March 2016)

Hopkins, R (on the application of) v Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield & Ors [2016] EWHC 606 (Admin) (21 March 2016)

The intimate relationship restriction was lawful, did not require a statutory instrument, and was justified as a blanket policy for order and discipline. The policy was applied with consideration of the claimant's needs. There was no breach of Article 3 or 8 ECHR, and any interference was justified. The claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, but reasonable adjustments were made and there was no breach of the Act.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 606 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Michelle Hopkins; First Defendant: Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield; Second 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
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Rights, Cell Sharing Policy, Disability Discrimination, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Reasonable Adjustments, Blanket Policies, Statutory Instruments
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Prisoner Rights Cell Sharing Policy Disability Discrimination 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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Hopkins

Claimant

Sodexo / HMP Bronzefield

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Stephanie Hopkins

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intimate relationship restriction required a statutory instrument under the Prison Act 1952
  2. 2 Whether the policy was unlawfully inflexible and failed to consider individual circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's Article 3 ECHR rights were engaged or breached

Ratio Decidendi

The intimate relationship restriction was lawful, did not require a statutory instrument, and was justified as a blanket policy for order and discipline. The policy was applied with consideration of the claimant's needs. There was no breach of Article 3 or 8 ECHR, and any interference was justified. The claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, but reasonable adjustments were made and there was no breach of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed