The High Court has rejected a prisoner’s judicial review challenge to his transfer from Shelton Abbey Prison to Wheatfield Prison, finding the move was a reasonable operational response to concerns about his health and welfare.
In a judgment delivered on 28 March 2019, Ms Justice Meenan said the transfer on 28 July 2017 was not capricious, arbitrary or unjust. The court refused the reliefs sought, which included an order quashing the transfer and an order directing the respondents to return the applicant to Shelton Abbey.
The applicant, Alan Lyons, was serving a life sentence for murder and had been transferred to Shelton Abbey in May 2017. The open prison’s regime was intended to help long-term prisoners prepare for temporary release. The judgment said he had achieved enhanced status and was engaging in rehabilitation and education activities.
The transfer followed an encounter with Shelton Abbey Assistant Governor Patrick Corcoran. In an affidavit, Mr Corcoran said the applicant appeared unsteady, spoke with slurred speech and did not make sense. He said he suspected the applicant was under the influence of an illegal substance and was concerned about his health and safety, particularly because the prison had limited healthcare cover.
The applicant denied taking intoxicants. A urine test after his return to Wheatfield was negative. Mr Corcoran said the test could detect only the substances it was designed to identify and could not cover all illicit substances.
After hearing evidence from both the applicant and Mr Corcoran, the court found that the applicant had been unsteady and speaking incoherently. It found it was more than likely that his condition resulted from an intoxicant, while noting that no medical explanation for his condition on that day had been put forward. The court also accepted that healthcare staffing at Shelton Abbey was limited.
The applicant argued that the matter should have been handled through prison disciplinary procedures, where the negative test could have cleared him. The respondents submitted that the court should intervene only if the transfer decision breached the standard of being capricious, arbitrary or unjust.
Justice Meenan held that the Assistant Governor could reasonably treat the transfer as an operational decision rather than a disciplinary sanction. At the time, he could not know the urine test result, and the operational response reduced the potential risk the applicant might face from disciplinary proceedings. The judgment said the transfer, as an operational measure, should not have adverse consequences for him.
The court also addressed an objection that the proceedings had been brought out of time. It found there had been confusion involving the applicant’s former solicitors, outside his control, and did not treat timing as an issue.