Dennehy, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 1219 (Admin) (26 May 2016)

Dennehy, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 1219 (Admin) (26 May 2016)

The claimant's segregation was unlawful between 21 September 2013 and 4 September 2015 due to lack of Secretary of State authorisation as required by the Prison Rules. However, there was no procedural unfairness, and the segregation did not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR because it was justified by exceptional risk, regularly reviewed, not arbitrary or punitive, and did not reach the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment or disproportionate interference with private life.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Joanne Dennehy; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Second Defendant: Sodexo Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Segregation, Procedural Fairness, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Prison Rules 1999, Unlawful Detention
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Prisoner Segregation Procedural Fairness Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Dennehy

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

First Defendant

Sodexo Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's segregation was lawfully authorised under the Prison Rules
  2. 2 Whether the segregation was procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the segregation breached Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or degrading treatment)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's segregation was unlawful between 21 September 2013 and 4 September 2015 due to lack of Secretary of State authorisation as required by the Prison Rules. However, there was no procedural unfairness, and the segregation did not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR because it was justified by exceptional risk, regularly reviewed, not arbitrary or punitive, and did not reach the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment or disproportionate interference with private life.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Declaration granted that the claimant's segregation between 21 September 2013 and 4 September 2015 was unlawful under the Prison Rules.
  • All other grounds for judicial review dismissed.