Coleman, R (on the application of) v Governor of HMP Wayland & Ors

Coleman, R (on the application of) v Governor of HMP Wayland & Ors

Rule 43(5) of the Prison Rules 1999 does not confer power on the prison governor to permanently confiscate and destroy prisoners’ property, except in the limited circumstances set out in Rule 43(4). The destruction of the Claimant’s mobile phone was therefore unlawful. There was no evidence that the phone was noxious so as to justify destruction at common law.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of Coleman; Defendants: Governor of HMP Wayland and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Prisoners' Property Rights, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires, Conversion, Judicial Review Procedures
Administrative Law Prison Law Tort Law Prisoners' Property Rights Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires Conversion Judicial Review Procedures

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of Coleman

Claimant

Governor of HMP Wayland and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prison governor had statutory or common law power to permanently confiscate and destroy a prisoner's property (mobile phone)
  2. 2 Whether Rule 43(5) of the Prison Rules 1999 authorises permanent deprivation of property
  3. 3 Whether such a rule would be ultra vires the Prison Act 1952

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 43(5) of the Prison Rules 1999 does not confer power on the prison governor to permanently confiscate and destroy prisoners’ property, except in the limited circumstances set out in Rule 43(4). The destruction of the Claimant’s mobile phone was therefore unlawful. There was no evidence that the phone was noxious so as to justify destruction at common law.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the destruction of the phone at issue in this case was unlawful.
  • Order for Claimant’s costs, subject to legal aid taxation.