AG v The Scottish Ministers [2017] ScotCS CSOH_10 (24 January 2017)

AG v The Scottish Ministers [2017] ScotCS CSOH_10 (24 January 2017)

The respondents did not breach either the ancillary duty under Article 5 ECHR or the public law duty. At the relevant times, there was no clear expert consensus that the petitioner was unsuitable for group work, and the respondents acted on available expert recommendations. The decision to use the HASI assessment and to place the petitioner on the Good Lives programme was reasonable and rational in the circumstances. The petitioner was offered reasonable opportunities for rehabilitation, and any lack of progress was partly due to his own limited engagement.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_10
Parties
Petitioner: AG; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR, Ancillary Public Law Duty, Prisoner Rehabilitation, Indeterminate Sentences, Parole Board Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Learning Disability in Prison Context
Public Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Article 5 ECHR Ancillary Public Law Duty Prisoner Rehabilitation Indeterminate Sentences Parole Board Review +2 more

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AG

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Ministers breached the ancillary duty under Article 5 ECHR to provide a reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation to a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the Scottish Ministers acted unreasonably or irrationally in failing to provide appropriate rehabilitative opportunities, particularly in light of the petitioner's cognitive impairments.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not breach either the ancillary duty under Article 5 ECHR or the public law duty. At the relevant times, there was no clear expert consensus that the petitioner was unsuitable for group work, and the respondents acted on available expert recommendations. The decision to use the HASI assessment and to place the petitioner on the Good Lives programme was reasonable and rational in the circumstances. The petitioner was offered reasonable opportunities for rehabilitation, and any lack of progress was partly due to his own limited engagement.

Court Disposition

Petition refused