Matthewson v Scottish Ministers [2001] ScotCS 169 (28 June 2001)

Matthewson v Scottish Ministers [2001] ScotCS 169 (28 June 2001)

The refusal of legal representation at the disciplinary hearing was unreasonable and should be reduced. However, the disciplinary proceedings did not involve the determination of a 'criminal charge' or 'civil rights' under Article 6 ECHR, as the penalties were disciplinary, not criminal, and any effect on parole was too remote and not an integral part of the proceedings. Therefore, Article 6 did not require an independent and impartial tribunal or legal representation as of right in this context.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 169
Parties
Petitioner: Douglas Cargill Matthewson; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion of Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Partial grant of judicial review; reduction of Governor's decision to refuse legal representation; other orders refused.
Legal Topics
Prison Discipline, Judicial Review, Article 6 ECHR, Right to Legal Representation, Independent and Impartial Tribunal, Scotland Act 1998
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Law Prison Discipline Judicial Review Article 6 ECHR Right to Legal Representation Independent and Impartial Tribunal +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Cargill Matthewson

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion of Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of legal representation at a prison disciplinary hearing was unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether prison disciplinary proceedings against a life prisoner engage Article 6 ECHR as a 'criminal charge' or 'civil right'
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary process is compatible with the requirement for an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal of legal representation at the disciplinary hearing was unreasonable and should be reduced. However, the disciplinary proceedings did not involve the determination of a 'criminal charge' or 'civil rights' under Article 6 ECHR, as the penalties were disciplinary, not criminal, and any effect on parole was too remote and not an integral part of the proceedings. Therefore, Article 6 did not require an independent and impartial tribunal or legal representation as of right in this context.

Court Disposition

Partial grant of judicial review; reduction of Governor's decision to refuse legal representation; other orders refused.

Orders

  • Decree of reduction of the Governor's decision to refuse the petitioner's request for legal representation.
  • Refusal of other declarators and orders sought.