Donnelly (AP), Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_106 (28 June 2013)

Donnelly (AP), Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_106 (28 June 2013)

The passage of time between the challenged decisions and the raising of proceedings did not constitute unreasonable delay given the chronology of legal aid applications and ongoing assertion of rights. The petitioner did not acquiesce or remain taciturn. The decisions to remove from association and extend removal were reasonable under Rule 94, given credible intelligence and risk to good order. Recategorisation was based on risk assessment and not solely on removal from association. No ground of challenge was made out for irrationality or lack of proportion. The petitioner's substantive challenges fail.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_106
Parties
Petitioner: Brian Donnelly (AP) FE; First Respondent: Governor of HMP Shotts; Second Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused; respondents' pleas in law (mora, taciturnity and acquiescence) repelled; substantive challenges dismissed.
Legal Topics
Removal From Association, Prisoner Categorisation, Procedural Fairness, Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence
Administrative Law Prison Law Judicial Review Removal From Association Prisoner Categorisation Procedural Fairness Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence

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

Parties

Brian Donnelly (AP) FE

Petitioner

Governor of HMP Shotts

First Respondent

Scottish Ministers

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether decisions to remove petitioner from association, extend removal, recategorise supervision, and require psychological work were unreasonable or irrational
  2. 2 Whether the petition is barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether the petition raises a live practical question

Ratio Decidendi

The passage of time between the challenged decisions and the raising of proceedings did not constitute unreasonable delay given the chronology of legal aid applications and ongoing assertion of rights. The petitioner did not acquiesce or remain taciturn. The decisions to remove from association and extend removal were reasonable under Rule 94, given credible intelligence and risk to good order. Recategorisation was based on risk assessment and not solely on removal from association. No ground of challenge was made out for irrationality or lack of proportion. The petitioner's substantive challenges fail.

Court Disposition

Petition refused; respondents' pleas in law (mora, taciturnity and acquiescence) repelled; substantive challenges dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondents' first and second pleas in law repelled.
  • Petitioner's substantive grounds of challenge refused.