Napier v Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 162 (26 June 2001)
The petitioner established a prima facie case that his detention conditions may contravene Article 3 ECHR, and the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim order for his transfer to compliant conditions, as the respondents did not argue impracticability in his individual case.
- Citation
- [2001] ScotCS 162
- Parties
- Petitioner: Robert Napier; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Interim Order Application
- Outcome
- Interim order granted in favour of the petitioner.
- Legal Topics
- Article 3 ECHR, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Prison Conditions, Interim Relief, Judicial Review
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Napier
Petitioner
The Scottish Ministers
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Order Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conditions of the petitioner's detention contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- 2 Whether an interim order should be granted requiring the petitioner's transfer to compliant conditions
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner established a prima facie case that his detention conditions may contravene Article 3 ECHR, and the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim order for his transfer to compliant conditions, as the respondents did not argue impracticability in his individual case.
Court Disposition
Interim order granted in favour of the petitioner.
Orders
- Scottish Ministers ordered to secure the transfer of the petitioner to conditions of detention compliant with Article 3 ECHR, within HM Prison Barlinnie or any other prison, within seventy-two hours.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment