Jones v HMP Full Sutton [2010] EWHC 2202 (Admin) (09 June 2010)

Jones v HMP Full Sutton [2010] EWHC 2202 (Admin) (09 June 2010)

The Governor's refusal to recategorise was not unlawful because, in the context of a serious sexual offence and high risk of harm to children, the absence of participation in the Sex Offender Treatment Programme meant there was insufficient evidence of risk reduction. Denial of guilt, while not a bar in itself, practically prevented the claimant from demonstrating reduced risk, justifying the decision.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2202 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jones; Defendant: HMP Full Sutton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused. Permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Prisoner Categorisation, Judicial Review of Prison Decisions, Denial of Guilt and Recategorisation, Risk Assessment in Prison Context
Prison Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Prisoner Categorisation Judicial Review of Prison Decisions Denial of Guilt and Recategorisation Risk Assessment in Prison Context

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jones

Claimant

HMP Full Sutton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Governor's refusal to recategorise the claimant from Category B was unlawful due to reliance on denial of guilt
  2. 2 Whether the decision failed to properly assess risk reduction apart from denial
  3. 3 Whether the Governor confused allocation with categorisation

Ratio Decidendi

The Governor's refusal to recategorise was not unlawful because, in the context of a serious sexual offence and high risk of harm to children, the absence of participation in the Sex Offender Treatment Programme meant there was insufficient evidence of risk reduction. Denial of guilt, while not a bar in itself, practically prevented the claimant from demonstrating reduced risk, justifying the decision.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused. Permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Permission to appeal refused