Callison v. Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 155 (25 June 2004)

Callison v. Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 155 (25 June 2004)

Interim orders for specific performance against the Crown are incompetent under section 21 Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The petitioner's averments do not disclose a prima facie case of serious ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR, and the balance of convenience is strongly against granting interim declarator due to public expenditure implications and lack of unusual features in petitioner's circumstances.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 155
Parties
Petitioner: John Callison; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Order Application
Outcome
Petitioner's motions for interim interdict and interim declarator refused; first order granted.
Legal Topics
European Convention on Human Rights, Prison Conditions, Judicial Review, Interim Relief, Crown Proceedings Act 1947
Human Rights Prison Law Administrative Law European Convention on Human Rights Prison Conditions Judicial Review Interim Relief Crown Proceedings Act 1947

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Callison

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prison conditions at HMP Peterhead contravene Articles 3 and 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Competency of interim orders against the Crown under section 21 Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  3. 3 Justification for interim declarator based on prima facie case and balance of convenience

Ratio Decidendi

Interim orders for specific performance against the Crown are incompetent under section 21 Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The petitioner's averments do not disclose a prima facie case of serious ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR, and the balance of convenience is strongly against granting interim declarator due to public expenditure implications and lack of unusual features in petitioner's circumstances.

Court Disposition

Petitioner's motions for interim interdict and interim declarator refused; first order granted.

Orders

  • Refusal of interim interdict
  • Refusal of interim declarator