Beggs v. The Scottish Ministers [2006] ScotCS CSIH_17 (16 March 2006)

Beggs v. The Scottish Ministers [2006] ScotCS CSIH_17 (16 March 2006)

The petition for judicial review was properly dismissed as it did not raise a live issue: the transfer decision had been implemented, the petitioner's circumstances had changed, and no amendment was moved to address current circumstances. There was no basis for orders restricting publicity or excluding the press, as no substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice was established.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_17
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: William Frederick Ian Beggs; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of dismissal adhered to
Legal Topics
Prisoner Transfer, Access to Legal Counsel, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review Procedure, Contempt of Court Act 1981 Section 4, Publicity and Fair Trial
Criminal Law Prison Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Prisoner Transfer Access to Legal Counsel Article 6 ECHR Judicial Review Procedure +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Frederick Ian Beggs

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition for judicial review raised a live issue after the prison transfer had been implemented and circumstances had changed
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner's rights under Article 6 ECHR (right of access to court and legal advisers) were infringed by the transfer decision
  3. 3 Whether the court should make orders restricting publicity under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or exclude the press from proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The petition for judicial review was properly dismissed as it did not raise a live issue: the transfer decision had been implemented, the petitioner's circumstances had changed, and no amendment was moved to address current circumstances. There was no basis for orders restricting publicity or excluding the press, as no substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice was established.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of dismissal adhered to

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused
  • Interlocutor of 24 March 2005 dismissing the petition adhered to