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

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

The recategorisation decision to retain the Claimant in Category C was lawful because the decision-maker considered all relevant factors, including the confiscation order and positive aspects of the Claimant's behaviour, and did not treat the confiscation order as an absolute bar to open conditions. The process was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Geoffrey Manning; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Categorisation, Recategorisation Process, Confiscation Orders, Judicial Review of Prison Decisions
Prison Law Administrative Law Prisoner Categorisation Recategorisation Process Confiscation Orders Judicial Review of Prison Decisions

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

Parties

Geoffrey Manning

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recategorisation of the Claimant from Category D to Category C was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the decision-maker failed to consider all relevant factors
  3. 3 Whether the existence of a confiscation order was treated as an absolute bar to open conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The recategorisation decision to retain the Claimant in Category C was lawful because the decision-maker considered all relevant factors, including the confiscation order and positive aspects of the Claimant's behaviour, and did not treat the confiscation order as an absolute bar to open conditions. The process was not procedurally unfair, and the Claimant was not treated inconsistently with co-defendants as categorisation is an individual risk assessment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed