The High Court has refused David Gibbons’s challenge to a 2004 disciplinary decision at Wheatfield Prison, finding that he admitted the charge and was not largely unclothed when prison staff confronted him with the report.
Gibbons sought judicial review to quash an administrative order made on 24 November 2004. He also sought declarations concerning the lawfulness of the disciplinary process and damages for alleged breaches of his rights and duties owed to him. He argued that he had not received fair procedures, including due notice or legal assistance, and that there was no appeal procedure or independent hearing. He also challenged the conditions in which the process was conducted and said the penalty was disproportionate.
The Governor of Wheatfield Prison opposed the claims and relied in particular on an alleged admission by Gibbons during the disciplinary process.
The dispute followed a search after information suggested prohibited items might be in Gibbons’s cell. He was taken from his cell, and his clothes were removed for examination by X-ray. Gibbons said he was later given only underpants; prison authorities said he was given a full set of prison clothing. About three hours later, Deputy Governor Sugrue presented him with an investigating officer’s report stating that prohibited items had been found. Sugrue said Gibbons agreed the report was correct. Gibbons said he replied, “no comment”.
The judge said changes under the Prisons Act 2007 and Prison Rules 2007 had since introduced an appeal to an independent tribunal where remission was lost. Gibbons’s lost remission days had also been restored. The judge therefore treated the remaining dispute as concerning the fairness of the hearing and a 56-day loss of privileges, which had already been served and for which Gibbons sought damages. The other issues were considered moot for the purposes of the discretionary judicial review remedy.
The judgment said Gibbons’s record showed nine disciplinary offences and that earlier records supported the Deputy Governor’s account. The judge considered Sugrue’s evidence more credible, finding that Gibbons admitted the charge and was not largely unclothed when he did so. The judge also found nothing improper in confronting him with the report at that time, noting that he could have denied the charge and required an investigation. The court refused all reliefs sought.