SP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 23, 2004, [2004] EWHC 1418 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
SP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 23, 2004, [2004] EWHC 1418 (Admin)
Case No: CO/5900/03
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 1418 (Admin)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEENS BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURTRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLWednesday 23rd June 2004Before :THE HONOURABLE THE HON. MR. JUSTICE JACK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ian Wise (instructed by the Howard League for Penal Reform, London N1) for the ClaimantJenni Richards (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMr. Justice Jack : Introduction: the claims1. The applicant, SP, was born on 4 September 1986, and is now 17 years old. Since 9 September 2003 she has been held at HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution at New Hall near Wakefield. When she arrived her situation was that she had pleaded guilty to various offences but had not been sentenced, and so was a remand prisoner. On 16 December 2003 she was sentenced under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act to be detained for 5 years. Between 25 September and 15 October she was removed from association and held within a segregation unit. In these proceedings for judicial review she seeks declaratory relief in respect of two matters arising from her segregation. The first is that while she was segregated she was not provided with the hours of `purposeful activity' referred in Chapter 7 of Prison Service Order 4950. The second is that she was not given an opportunity to make representations as to her segregation before the decision to segregate her was made. The first claim is made with permission granted by Elias J. on 11 December 2003, and the second is made with permission granted by the Court of Appeal on 24 March 2004.Factual background2. Although the issues which the claims raise are very largely matters of law I should provide somewhat more of the factual background in relation to the order for segregation. SP is a highly disturbed young woman. She had a very difficult early life. She did not attend school after she was 11. A psychiatric report dated 15 October 2003 found no evidence of mental illness but found a severely disturbed personality characterised by sadistic traits with lack of empathy to the victim, an inability to maintain personal relationships and a general lack of sense of responsibility. It referred to episodes of self-harm, over-doses, the use of prohibited drugs and excessive use of alcohol. It concluded that at this stage of her development psychiatric treatment would not help her. The offences for which she was sentenced included the robbery and assaulting of a girl who was alleged to owe her co-defendant money. The girl's hair was cut off and SP slashed the girl's arms with a knife, which she found funny. She wanted to cut the girl's ears off but was told not to by her co-defendant. Assessments made by the Youth Justice Board on 2 and 18 June 2003 identified SP as being a risk to vulnerable adults, her peers, the public and to staff. While on remand in secure training centres she had committed acts of self-harm, had committed arson, cut other young people with blades and had been violent towards staff and put a substance in their tea.3. On SP's arr...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
