WILLIAM McCULLOCH FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_13 (29 January 2020)

WILLIAM McCULLOCH FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_13 (29 January 2020)

The petition for judicial review is incompetent as it seeks just satisfaction for a completed act, not review of a decision or control of officials. The sheriff court has exclusive jurisdiction for such claims. No breach of article 8 ECHR occurred as the double enveloping procedure was likely not followed, and any interference was de minimus.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_13
Parties
Petitioner: William McCulloch; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Prisoner Correspondence, Judicial Review Competence, Damages Under Human Rights Act
Human Rights Prison Law Administrative Law Article 8 ECHR Prisoner Correspondence Judicial Review Competence Damages Under Human Rights Act

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William McCulloch

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the petition for judicial review competent given the nature of the claim?
  2. 2 Was the opening of the petitioner's confidential legal correspondence a violation of article 8 ECHR?
  3. 3 Is the petitioner entitled to damages or declaratory relief under the Human Rights Act and Scotland Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The petition for judicial review is incompetent as it seeks just satisfaction for a completed act, not review of a decision or control of officials. The sheriff court has exclusive jurisdiction for such claims. No breach of article 8 ECHR occurred as the double enveloping procedure was likely not followed, and any interference was de minimus.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • third plea in law for respondents sustained
  • petition dismissed