Ralston v. Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review [2004] ScotCS 242 (05 November 2004)

Ralston v. Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review [2004] ScotCS 242 (05 November 2004)

An order for interim suspension of the segregation order would have the same practical effect as an order for interdict or specific performance against the Crown, which is prohibited by section 21(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Therefore, the motion is incompetent. Even if competent, the balance of convenience does not favour granting the order as the petitioner has not shown irreparable harm and the respondents' management of a difficult prisoner would be compromised.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 242
Parties
Petitioner: Samuel Ralston; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Suspension Motion in Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Petitioner's motion for interim suspension refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Prison Segregation, Competency of Interim Suspension Against the Crown, Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR Rights, Interpretation of Crown Proceedings Act 1947
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Judicial Review of Prison Segregation Competency of Interim Suspension Against the Crown Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR Rights Interpretation of 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Ralston

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Suspension Motion in Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim suspension of a segregation order against the Crown is competent under section 21(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner's segregation breached Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim suspension

Ratio Decidendi

An order for interim suspension of the segregation order would have the same practical effect as an order for interdict or specific performance against the Crown, which is prohibited by section 21(1)(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Therefore, the motion is incompetent. Even if competent, the balance of convenience does not favour granting the order as the petitioner has not shown irreparable harm and the respondents' management of a difficult prisoner would be compromised.

Court Disposition

Petitioner's motion for interim suspension refused.

Orders

  • Refusal of interim suspension of the Rule 80(5) segregation order.