GILDAY, PETITION OF DAVID GILDAY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2019] ScotCS CSOH_103 (10 December 2019)

GILDAY, PETITION OF DAVID GILDAY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2019] ScotCS CSOH_103 (10 December 2019)

The seizure and retention of the card were reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent the introduction of illicit substances into the prison, pursuing a legitimate aim under Article 8(2) ECHR. The SPS had sufficient grounds based on the positive drug dog indication, and refusal to provide a copy was justified by health and safety concerns. There was no disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_103
Parties
Petitioner: David Gilday; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Prisoner Correspondence, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Unauthorised Property, Prison Rules
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Prisoner Correspondence Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Unauthorised Property Prison Rules

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

Parties

David Gilday

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seizure and retention of a greeting card sent to the petitioner constituted a disproportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the SPS was justified in refusing to provide the petitioner with the contents of the seized correspondence

Ratio Decidendi

The seizure and retention of the card were reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent the introduction of illicit substances into the prison, pursuing a legitimate aim under Article 8(2) ECHR. The SPS had sufficient grounds based on the positive drug dog indication, and refusal to provide a copy was justified by health and safety concerns. There was no disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Second plea-in-law for the respondents sustained
  • Petitioner's plea-in-law repelled