Ellis, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Education & Anor [2023] EWHC 2230 (Admin) (07 September 2023)

Ellis, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Education & Anor [2023] EWHC 2230 (Admin) (07 September 2023)

The claimant's challenge to the 2016 Regulations was out of time and, in any event, failed on the merits as the differential treatment of prisoners was objectively justified and proportionate. The operational difficulties and restrictions on educational access in prison did not amount to a breach of the right to education or unlawful discrimination. The removal of the Chromebook was a proportionate and reasonable response to a breach of the compact agreement, and the claimant was not unlawfully denied access to education.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2230 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Fajr Ellis; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Education; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: Student Loans Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Education, Discrimination, Prisoner Rights, Student Loans, Judicial Review Procedure
Public Law Prison Law Education Law Human Rights Right to Education Discrimination Prisoner Rights Student Loans +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fajr Ellis

Claimant

Secretary of State for Education

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Justice

Second Defendant

Student Loans Company Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2016 Regulations on postgraduate student loans unlawfully discriminate against prisoners and breach Article 2 Protocol 1 (A2P1) and Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether restrictions on access to educational resources and IT in prison unlawfully impede the right to education
  3. 3 Whether the removal of the claimant's Chromebook and related disciplinary actions were unlawful and disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's challenge to the 2016 Regulations was out of time and, in any event, failed on the merits as the differential treatment of prisoners was objectively justified and proportionate. The operational difficulties and restrictions on educational access in prison did not amount to a breach of the right to education or unlawful discrimination. The removal of the Chromebook was a proportionate and reasonable response to a breach of the compact agreement, and the claimant was not unlawfully denied access to education.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review is refused.
  • Permission to rely on additional evidence regarding HMP IOW is refused.