Neil, Re [2002] ScotHC 323 (21 November 2002)

Neil, Re [2002] ScotHC 323 (21 November 2002)

The CP2 form response did not constitute a clear and unambiguous representation capable of founding a legitimate expectation; even if it had, the representation was ultra vires and could not fetter the respondents' statutory discretion. The transfer decision was justified by public interest in prison management and was not unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

Citation
[2002] ScotHC 323
Parties
Petitioner: Kevin John Neil; Respondent: Scottish Executive
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Abuse of Power, Prisoner Transfer, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Article 8 ECHR
Administrative Law Prison Law Human Rights Legitimate Expectation Abuse of Power Prisoner Transfer Wednesbury Unreasonableness Article 8 ECHR

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin John Neil

Petitioner

Scottish Executive

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner had a legitimate expectation not to be transferred from Saughton prison
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' decision to transfer the petitioner was an abuse of power
  3. 3 Whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense

Ratio Decidendi

The CP2 form response did not constitute a clear and unambiguous representation capable of founding a legitimate expectation; even if it had, the representation was ultra vires and could not fetter the respondents' statutory discretion. The transfer decision was justified by public interest in prison management and was not unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petitioner's pleas-in-law repelled
  • Respondents' pleas-in-law sustained