BEGGS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS DATED 12 MAY 2017 [2018] ScotCS CSOH_72 (10 July 2018)

BEGGS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS DATED 12 MAY 2017 [2018] ScotCS CSOH_72 (10 July 2018)

The decision to refuse the petitioner access to a personally owned laptop was not irrational, all relevant factors were considered, and any interference with Article 8 rights was justified, proportionate, and pursued a legitimate aim (prison order and security). The alternatives provided were adequate and the petitioner failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances or prejudice.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_72
Parties
Petitioner: William Frederick Ian Beggs; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prisoner Rights, Access to Technology, Article 8 ECHR, Irrationality, Procedural Fairness
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Judicial Review Prisoner Rights Access to Technology Article 8 ECHR Irrationality +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Frederick Ian Beggs

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to allow the petitioner to purchase and use a personal laptop in prison was irrational
  2. 2 Whether relevant factors were not taken into account or given insufficient weight
  3. 3 Whether the decision constituted a disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse the petitioner access to a personally owned laptop was not irrational, all relevant factors were considered, and any interference with Article 8 rights was justified, proportionate, and pursued a legitimate aim (prison order and security). The alternatives provided were adequate and the petitioner failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances or prejudice.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petition for judicial review refused