The High Court has refused all relief sought by a Midlands Prison inmate who argued that restrictions linked to his classification as a vulnerable prisoner should trigger procedural safeguards under the Prison Rules.
In a judgment delivered on 17 June 2020, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that Rule 62 did not apply on the facts. She said the applicant had not been subjected to a regime comparable to the restrictions described in that rule and there was insufficient evidence to declare that it should have been invoked.
The case was heard as a “telescoped” judicial review, treated as the substantive review application after pleadings and affidavits had been exchanged. The applicant had initially made broader claims about his prison conditions, but narrowed his case to whether Rule 62 procedures applied and whether confidential information supporting his Rule 63 designation could be reviewed. Most of his other claims were abandoned after the respondents disputed them.
Rule 62 provides for restrictions on activities, communal recreation or association where the governor considers them necessary for good order or safe custody. It also requires written reasons, weekly reviews and records, with additional oversight in certain cases. Rule 63 allows a prisoner to be kept separate from others reasonably likely to cause significant harm and requires a record of the direction and its grounds.
The judge said the rules can overlap: if a Rule 63 arrangement results in a regime effectively akin to Rule 62, its safeguards may be required. But she found that this applicant had not shown that was the situation. The court accepted that he received at least two hours daily for recreation and that he had not applied for structured activities. The evidence was that he refused to associate with prisoners on his landing and had made requests to meet only two specific prisoners; the respondents gave reasons for refusing those requests. The judge also noted that weekly reviews had taken place.
The Assistant Governor said Rule 63 had been applied because confidential information indicated a serious, continuing and viable threat to the applicant’s life. The court said Rule 63 appeared to have been followed and found no basis to quash the designation as arbitrary or irrational. It also upheld the earlier refusal by Humphreys J to allow cross-examination aimed at exploring the confidential information, citing the risks to sources and prison security.
The judge’s comments on possible review of that information were expressly obiter, since Rule 62 did not apply. She said the applicant could use the Prison Rules’ grievance process, including a written request under Rule 57(1) for a meeting with an officer of the Minister. The court could consider the issue after available procedures had been exhausted, or if their adequacy were challenged. The reliefs sought were refused.