The High Court found that prison authorities failed to comply with a rule requiring written reasons when they restricted prisoner Jason Paget’s activities and association at Midlands Prison in 2017. The court left the terms of its order and any question of damages for further discussion with counsel.
Mr Justice MacGrath’s judgment concerned directions made under Rule 62 of the Prison Rules. From 28 June to 15 September 2017, the directions restricted Paget’s participation in authorised activities, communal recreation and association with other prisoners. The notices were renewed, generally for seven-day periods, and the Governor reviewed them. Paget was no longer subject to the regime by the time of the proceedings.
Most notices gave the same reason: that the Governor believed allowing Paget to take part in activities or associate would pose a significant threat to good order or safe custody. The judgment said the notices did not explain what led to that conclusion. Some recorded Paget’s requests to speak with a Governor; he refused to sign several notices.
Prison officials’ court evidence referred to intelligence and alleged bullying or harassment of vulnerable prisoners. An official also said Paget had thanked the Governor for explaining the reason for the regime in a conversation in August. The judge held that this later evidence did not satisfy Rule 62(5), which required the reasons to be given to the prisoner in writing. The notices themselves contained no more than a formulaic statement of the legal threshold, the court said.
The judge did not decide whether Paget’s regime amounted to solitary confinement. He held that Rule 62 applied regardless, and that the written-reasons requirement was mandatory. While security concerns might justify a minimal explanation, the prisoner still had to receive some understandable account of why the directions were made. The court also rejected the argument that the proceedings should not be heard because the regime had ended, noting the short duration of such directions and the claim for damages.
The judgment concluded that Paget succeeded to the extent that the respondents had failed to meet Rule 62(5). It did not yet set out a final order or decide whether damages should be awarded; those matters were to be discussed with counsel.