Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley & Anor

Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley & Anor

Article 6 ECHR was not engaged because the penalties imposed on the appellant did not include additional days and were not sufficiently severe to cross the threshold into the criminal sphere. There is no common law requirement for disciplinary charges against life prisoners to be heard by an independent adjudicator. The standards of fairness are flexible and context-dependent, and the facts of this case did not warrant intervention.

Parties
Appellant: Thomas Tangney; 1st Respondent: The Governor of HMP Elmley; 2nd Respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (judicial Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 6 ECHR, Prison Disciplinary Proceedings, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Prison Law Human Rights Article 6 ECHR Prison Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Fairness 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Tangney

Appellant

The Governor of HMP Elmley

1st Respondent

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (judicial Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged in prison disciplinary proceedings against life prisoners where additional days cannot be imposed
  2. 2 Whether common law requires disciplinary charges against life prisoners to be heard by an independent adjudicator rather than a prison governor

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6 ECHR was not engaged because the penalties imposed on the appellant did not include additional days and were not sufficiently severe to cross the threshold into the criminal sphere. There is no common law requirement for disciplinary charges against life prisoners to be heard by an independent adjudicator. The standards of fairness are flexible and context-dependent, and the facts of this case did not warrant intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed