Mark Alexander, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Mark Alexander, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

The Governor misapplied PSI 37/2010 by treating urgency as a prerequisite for telephone contact with the media and by failing to consider the actual merits of the request, including expert evidence that a telephone interview was essential for the proposed podcast. The Governor also acted irrationally in concluding...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Alexander; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: Robin Eveleigh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Permission Granted
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Prisoners' Rights, Judicial Review, Article 10 ECHR, Administrative Law
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Freedom of Expression Prisoners' Rights Judicial Review Article 10 ECHR Administrative Law

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Alexander

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Robin Eveleigh

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Permission Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of consent for a prisoner to be interviewed by telephone by a journalist was lawful under PSI 37/2010 and compatible with Article 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Governor misapplied the relevant policy and/or acted irrationally in refusing consent
  3. 3 Whether the policy itself is unlawful as a de facto blanket ban

Ratio Decidendi

The Governor misapplied PSI 37/2010 by treating urgency as a prerequisite for telephone contact with the media and by failing to consider the actual merits of the request, including expert evidence that a telephone interview was essential for the proposed podcast. The Governor also acted irrationally in concluding that there was a risk of distress to victims or outrage to public sensibilities, as there were no identifiable victims other than the deceased and no rational basis for public outrage. The refusal letter was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The Refusal Letter is quashed.
  • The Governor must consider the claimant’s request afresh.