PETITION BY YE HAO YAN or LI BIN YAN AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_104 (18 December 2020)

PETITION BY YE HAO YAN or LI BIN YAN AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_104 (18 December 2020)

The refusal to progress the petitioner was based on an individualised assessment of his significant flight risk, not a blanket or unlawful policy. The relevant rules and guidance lawfully and proportionately exclude deportees from progression and temporary release, as their reintegration into the UK community is not a legitimate aim where deportation is imminent. Any difference in treatment is objectively justified and not discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_104
Parties
Petitioner: Ye Hao Yan or Li Bin Yan; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Temporary Release of Prisoners, Deportation Orders, ECHR Article 5, ECHR Article 8, ECHR Article 14, Discrimination, Prisoner Progression, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Statutory Interpretation
Public Law Prison Law Human Rights Law Temporary Release of Prisoners Deportation Orders ECHR Article 5 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Article 14 +5 more

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

Parties

Ye Hao Yan or Li Bin Yan

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to progress the petitioner to less secure prison conditions and temporary release was unlawful due to a blanket policy against deportees.
  2. 2 Whether the relevant prison rules and guidance unlawfully discriminate against deportees under Article 14 ECHR.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal breached the petitioner's rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR.

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to progress the petitioner was based on an individualised assessment of his significant flight risk, not a blanket or unlawful policy. The relevant rules and guidance lawfully and proportionately exclude deportees from progression and temporary release, as their reintegration into the UK community is not a legitimate aim where deportation is imminent. Any difference in treatment is objectively justified and not discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • First four pleas-in-law for the respondents sustained
  • Petition refused