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

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

The James public law duty concerns the availability of systems and resources for IPP prisoners as a class, not the treatment of individual prisoners. There was no evidence of a systemic breach in this case, only individual complaints about delay. The claimant's challenge was misconceived as it did not establish a systemic failure. There was no breach of Article 5(1) ECHR as the circumstances did not amount to arbitrary detention.

Parties
Claimant: Faisal Kaiyam; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (ipp), Judicial Review, Systemic Breach of Duty, Article 5 ECHR, Prisoner Rehabilitation, Parole Board Reviews
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (ipp) Judicial Review Systemic Breach of Duty Article 5 ECHR Prisoner Rehabilitation +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faisal Kaiyam

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State breached a public law duty to provide the claimant with a reasonable opportunity to reduce his risk through rehabilitative work under the statutory scheme for IPP prisoners
  2. 2 Whether there was a systemic or individual breach of duty under the principles established in Secretary of State for Justice v James and related authorities
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's continued detention breached Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The James public law duty concerns the availability of systems and resources for IPP prisoners as a class, not the treatment of individual prisoners. There was no evidence of a systemic breach in this case, only individual complaints about delay. The claimant's challenge was misconceived as it did not establish a systemic failure. There was no breach of Article 5(1) ECHR as the circumstances did not amount to arbitrary detention.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed