×

High Court judgment on the rights of Close Supervision Centre prisoners

Published:

Photo by Mahosadha Ong on Unsplash

The High Court has handed down judgment in R (Awale) v SSJ [2024] EWHC 2322 (Admin) an important case concerning the rights of prisoners held in Close Supervision Centres (“CSC”) under rule 46 of the Prison Rules 1999. The Claimant, Fuad Awale, is a CSC prisoner who was assessed as being suitable to associate with other prisoners but spent many months without being able to associate with any other prisoner. Mr Awale argued that his removal from association was not reviewed and properly authorised, and that this was not accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. He also contended that the Secretary of State for Justice (“SSJ”) had breached the public sector equality duty (“PSED”) in making decisions in respect of the CSC system.

Ellenbogen J allowed the claim. She held that the CSC Management Committee had not, as a matter of fact, directed that Mr Awale could resume association and the Committee had therefore failed to review and/or renew the Claimant’s removal from association. But, in any event, even where such a direction has been made, the Committee is required (per r 46(2)) to review a prisoner’s absence of association if they are unable to associate with others. Further, the Judge held that, in breach of the requirements of common law fairness, the SSJ failed to give Mr Awale adequate reasons for his removal from association. The Judge went on to hold that the Claimant’s removal from association breached his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. The legal framework governing decisions on CSC prisoners’ removal from association with others does not, held Ellenbogen J, afford the requisite measure of legal protection against arbitrary interference with Article 8 rights. Finally, the Judge held that the SSJ breached the PSED by failing to make enquiries about the impact of the presence of a significant body of racist/ Islamophobic prisoners in the CSC on the ability of non-white or Muslim prisoners to associate with others and thus failed to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by such prisoners.

Dan Squires KC and Aidan Wills (instructed by Birnberg Peirce) represented the Claimant.

Sarah Hannett KC and Myles Grandison (instructed by GLD) represented the Secretary of State for Justice.

Useful link(s):

Judgment