O'Neill, Re Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_93 (28 October 2015)

O'Neill, Re Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_93 (28 October 2015)

The petitioners failed to demonstrate a family life of a type and quality that engages Article 8 ECHR; their relationship, evidenced primarily by complicity in serious sexual offences, does not merit protection under Article 8. No breach of Article 14 ECHR or Equality Act 2010 was established. The prison service did not act unlawfully or discriminatorily. The petition is not time barred, but fails on substantive grounds.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_93
Parties
Petitioner: Charles O’Neill; Petitioner: William Lauchlan; Respondent: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
ECHR Article 8, ECHR Article 14, Equality Act 2010, Inter Prison Visits, Discrimination, Prison Rules
Human Rights Prison Law Equality Law ECHR Article 8 ECHR Article 14 Equality Act 2010 Inter Prison Visits Discrimination +1 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 5 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles O’Neill

Petitioner

William Lauchlan

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of inter-prison visits violated petitioners' right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether petitioners suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR and Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the petition is time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners failed to demonstrate a family life of a type and quality that engages Article 8 ECHR; their relationship, evidenced primarily by complicity in serious sexual offences, does not merit protection under Article 8. No breach of Article 14 ECHR or Equality Act 2010 was established. The prison service did not act unlawfully or discriminatorily. The petition is not time barred, but fails on substantive grounds.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Petitioners' pleas-in-law repelled
  • Respondents' time bar plea repelled