MICHAEL GLANCY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_1 (07 January 2020)

MICHAEL GLANCY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_1 (07 January 2020)

The respondents made adequate provision for the SCP course and offered the petitioner a real opportunity for rehabilitation. The petitioner was not admitted to the April 2018 SCP due to his own failure to engage with the admissions process in time. The respondents did not breach Article 5 ECHR or domestic law...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_1
Parties
Petitioner: Michael Glancy; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Rehabilitation of Prisoners, Article 5 ECHR, Provision of Information to Prisoners, Damages for Breach of Convention Rights
Public Law Human Rights Prison Law Rehabilitation of Prisoners Article 5 ECHR Provision of Information to Prisoners Damages for Breach of Convention Rights

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Glancy

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to provide rehabilitative work in breach of Article 5 ECHR and domestic law
  2. 2 Whether the respondents failed to provide information about rehabilitation in breach of Article 5 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted irrationally and unfairly in failing to provide sufficient information about rehabilitation

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents made adequate provision for the SCP course and offered the petitioner a real opportunity for rehabilitation. The petitioner was not admitted to the April 2018 SCP due to his own failure to engage with the admissions process in time. The respondents did not breach Article 5 ECHR or domestic law obligations, nor did they fail to provide information or act irrationally.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents’ pleas-in-law upheld
  • Petitioner’s pleas-in-law repelled