Highton, R (on the application of) v HMYOI Lancaster Farms & Anor [2007] EWHC 1085 (Admin) (17 April 2007)

Highton, R (on the application of) v HMYOI Lancaster Farms & Anor [2007] EWHC 1085 (Admin) (17 April 2007)

Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the 2005 Order applies to any sentence of imprisonment of less than 12 months, not only where all sentences are under 12 months. The claimant's construction is artificial and unsupported by the text. The coexistence of two sentencing regimes is a result of the legislative framework, not the Order itself. The Secretary of State's refusal to grant special remission was not irrational given the claimant's breach of curfew while unlawfully at large.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1085 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Steven Highton; First Defendant: Governor of HMYOI Lancaster Farms; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentence Calculation, Transitional Provisions, Home Detention Curfew, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Administrative Law Sentence Calculation Transitional Provisions Home Detention Curfew Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Highton

Claimant

Governor of HMYOI Lancaster Farms

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Act (Commencement No 8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2005 SI 2005/950
  2. 2 Whether sentences of under and over 12 months should be treated under one or both sentencing regimes for release and Home Detention Curfew eligibility
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to grant special remission was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the 2005 Order applies to any sentence of imprisonment of less than 12 months, not only where all sentences are under 12 months. The claimant's construction is artificial and unsupported by the text. The coexistence of two sentencing regimes is a result of the legislative framework, not the Order itself. The Secretary of State's refusal to grant special remission was not irrational given the claimant's breach of curfew while unlawfully at large.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • No order for costs against the claimant