BRIAN MORRICE AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2022] ScotCS CSOH_77 (13 October 2022)

BRIAN MORRICE AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2022] ScotCS CSOH_77 (13 October 2022)

The petitioner did not have an established right to FGTR; the delay in processing his application was not irrational given the complexity of his case, the need for risk management, and the impact of the pandemic. There was no unlawful delay at common law, nor was there a breach of Article 5 ECHR, as the threshold...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_77
Parties
Petitioner: Brian Morrice; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Petition / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Administrative Delay, Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty and Security), Prisoner Rehabilitation and Temporary Release, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality in Administrative Law
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Judicial Review of Administrative Delay Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty and Security) Prisoner Rehabilitation and Temporary Release Procedural Fairness Irrationality in Administrative Law

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Morrice

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Petition / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in determining the petitioner's application for First Grant of Temporary Release (FGTR) was unlawful at common law
  2. 2 Whether the delay breached Article 5 of the ECHR (right to liberty and security)
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner was entitled to just satisfaction (damages) for the alleged breach

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner did not have an established right to FGTR; the delay in processing his application was not irrational given the complexity of his case, the need for risk management, and the impact of the pandemic. There was no unlawful delay at common law, nor was there a breach of Article 5 ECHR, as the threshold for arbitrariness was not met and the petitioner was not deprived of a real opportunity for rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Respondents' fourth, fifth and sixth pleas-in-law sustained
  • Petition refused