| PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Disciplinary proceedings — Prisoner found guilty of disciplinary offence — Whether disciplinary proceedings compatible with Convention — Whether art 6 required independent prosecutor — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt 1, art 6
R (Haase) v Independent Adjudicator District Judge Nuttall and another [2007] EWHC 3079 (Admin)
QBD: Stanley Burnton J: 20 December 2007
The system of hearings by Independent Adjudicators of prison disciplinary proceedings, in which the prosecution case was presented by a prison officer who might also be a witness, was not incompatible with art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Stanley Burnton J so held when dismissing an application by the claimant, John Haase, for judicial review of the finding of guilt in prison disciplinary proceedings made against him on 7 April 2006 by the first defendant, the Independent Adjudicator District Judge Nuttall at HMP Full Sutton, for breach of a lawful order made in accordance with s 16A of the Prison Act 1952 and rule 50 of the Prison Rules 1999 (SI 1999/728), as amended.
The prosecution was essentially conducted by the reporting Prison Officer, who also gave evidence in the course of the adjudication carried out under the 1999 Rules and the Prison Disciplinary Manual Adjudications, PSO 2000. The claimant contended that the proceedings before the Independent Adjudicator were unfair, and in breach of his right to a fair trial under art 6 of the Convention because the prosecution lacked sufficient independence.
STANLEY BURNTON J said that it was common ground that art 6 applied to the hearing before the Independent Adjudicator under the 1999 Rules. The challenge to the determination of the Independent Adjudicator was based on the decision of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court in R v Stow [2005] EWCA Crim 1157, in which a conviction by a court-martial was quashed on the ground that the trial had been unfair and did not comply with art 6 because the prosecution had lacked the necessary independence. There was nothing in the Strasbourg authorities on the question whether prison disciplinary proceedings in the UK complied with art 6 to indicate that the prosecutor in those proceedings was required to be independent. It was significant that the wording of art 6 expressly stipulated the independence of the tribunal but did not mention the independence of the prosecution. Offences considered by Independent Adjudicators were at the less serious end of the spectrum of gravity. More serious offences were referred to the ordinary criminal courts. In the present context disciplinary proceedings were to be dealt with speedily; prison officers were expected to act fairly and with integrity and their duty to do so was required by the Manual. The Independent Adjudicator himself was under an express duty to act fairly and justly and to conduct an impartial inquiry. The instant case could be distinguished from the court-martial considered in Stow. Fairness did not require an independent prosecutor and the proceedings in the present case were fair.
|
