Bashir, R (on the application of) v The Independent Adjudicator

Bashir, R (on the application of) v The Independent Adjudicator

The adjudicator erred by failing to consider whether the order to provide a urine sample, in the context of the claimant's religious fast, was a lawful and proportionate interference with Article 9 ECHR rights. The adjudicator's reliance solely on the absence of a religious festival exception was inadequate. There was no evidence before the adjudicator to justify the proportionality of requiring the claimant to break his fast, and the interference with his Article 9 rights was not shown to be justified. The adjudication must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Imran Bashir; Defendant: The Independent Adjudicator; Interested Party: HMP Ryehill; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Adjudication quashed
Legal Topics
Article 9 ECHR, Mandatory Drug Testing, Religious Freedom, Prison Discipline, Judicial Review
Human Rights Law Prison Law Administrative Law Article 9 ECHR Mandatory Drug Testing Religious Freedom Prison Discipline Judicial Review

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

Parties

Imran Bashir

Claimant

The Independent Adjudicator

Defendant

HMP Ryehill

Interested Party

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision breached Article 9 ECHR rights to manifest religion
  2. 2 Whether the order to provide a urine sample was lawful and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's reasons and findings on intent and lawfulness were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator erred by failing to consider whether the order to provide a urine sample, in the context of the claimant's religious fast, was a lawful and proportionate interference with Article 9 ECHR rights. The adjudicator's reliance solely on the absence of a religious festival exception was inadequate. There was no evidence before the adjudicator to justify the proportionality of requiring the claimant to break his fast, and the interference with his Article 9 rights was not shown to be justified. The adjudication must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Adjudication quashed

Orders

  • The challenged adjudication is quashed.