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

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

The refusal to hold an oral hearing breached procedural fairness and failed to properly apply PSI 08/2013, given the significant dispute on expert materials, the existence of an impasse, the Claimant's post-tariff status, and the impact of Category A status on liberty. The decision was unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Edwin Hopkins; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds; decision not to hold oral hearing quashed.
Legal Topics
Security Categorisation, Oral Hearing Entitlement, Procedural Fairness, Application of Prison Policy
Prison Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Security Categorisation Oral Hearing Entitlement Application of Prison Policy

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Hopkins

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to hold an oral hearing for Category A security review breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to properly or fairly apply PSI 08/2013

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to hold an oral hearing breached procedural fairness and failed to properly apply PSI 08/2013, given the significant dispute on expert materials, the existence of an impasse, the Claimant's post-tariff status, and the impact of Category A status on liberty. The decision was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds; decision not to hold oral hearing quashed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Category A Review Team dated 21st September 2018 is quashed.
  • The Defendant is required to reconsider the Claimant's categorisation with a properly conducted oral hearing.