McKenzie & Ors v. The Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 196 (02 August 2004)

McKenzie & Ors v. The Scottish Ministers [2004] ScotCS 196 (02 August 2004)

The Court refused to grant interim orders sought by the petitioners, holding that such orders were incompetent against the Crown in judicial review proceedings under section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and that the petitioners had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case of breach of Articles 3 or 8 ECHR to merit summary interim relief. The balance of convenience did not favour granting orders at this stage, especially given the potential implications for other prisoners and the need for proper hearing and answers from the respondents.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 196
Parties
Petitioners: Nigel McKenzie (A. P.) and others; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Petition / Application for Urgent Interim Orders Prior to Service and Intimation
Outcome
Interim orders refused
Legal Topics
Prison Conditions, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Interim Orders, Competency of Orders Against the Crown
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Prison Law Prison Conditions Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Interim Orders +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 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel McKenzie (A. P.) and others

Petitioners

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Petition / Application for Urgent Interim Orders Prior to Service and Intimation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prison conditions at Saughton Prison breach Article 3 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether interim orders or declarators can be competently granted against the Scottish Ministers in judicial review proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to grant interim orders sought by the petitioners, holding that such orders were incompetent against the Crown in judicial review proceedings under section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and that the petitioners had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case of breach of Articles 3 or 8 ECHR to merit summary interim relief. The balance of convenience did not favour granting orders at this stage, especially given the potential implications for other prisoners and the need for proper hearing and answers from the respondents.

Court Disposition

Interim orders refused

Orders

  • Refused interim orders sought by petitioners other than those for service and intimation