PETITION OF LEE BROWN FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_45 (19 May 2020)

PETITION OF LEE BROWN FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_45 (19 May 2020)

Personal attendance by the petitioner at the RMT meeting was not required for procedural fairness because the RMT members were already familiar with the petitioner, there were no disputed facts, and the petitioner could not have contributed materially beyond his written submissions. The RMT's function was essentially a prison management decision, and the circumstances did not warrant a higher standard of procedural fairness.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_45
Parties
Petitioner: Lee Brown; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Prisoner Progression, Right to Oral Hearing, Prison Management Decisions
Administrative Law Prison Law Procedural Fairness Prisoner Progression Right to Oral Hearing Prison Management Decisions

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

Parties

Lee Brown

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness required the petitioner to be permitted to attend the Risk Management Team (RMT) meeting deciding his progression to less secure prison conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Personal attendance by the petitioner at the RMT meeting was not required for procedural fairness because the RMT members were already familiar with the petitioner, there were no disputed facts, and the petitioner could not have contributed materially beyond his written submissions. The RMT's function was essentially a prison management decision, and the circumstances did not warrant a higher standard of procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Petition refused