header-logo header-logo

09 March 2015
Issue: 7644 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No smoking for inmates

Prisoners do not have a human right to smoke and the public ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces applies to state prisons, the High Court has held.

Although the case concerns prisons, the main issue of law applies to all government buildings.  

In Black v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 528 (Admin), Mr Justice Singh ruled in favour of Paul Black, an inmate of HMP Wymott, a non-smoker with health problems who was concerned about the effect of second-hand smoke.

The case centred on whether Part 1 of the Health Act 2006, which bans smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces, applied to state prisons under the authority of the Crown. 

The Secretary of State argued that the Health Act 2006, so far as material, does not apply to any government buildings or spaces, on the ground that the relevant part of the Act does not bind the Crown.

Prison policy is that inmates are permitted to smoke in their own cells but not in common areas. Similarly, staff are not permitted to smoke in common areas.

Mr Singh held that the 2006 Act applies to all public places and workplaces which fall within its scope, including those for which the Crown is responsible, therefore both state and private sector prisons are bound by it.

However, he rejected the claimant’s arguments that his human rights had been breached and that there had been a breach of the Prison Rules 1999.
Mr Singh stayed his order pending any appeal.

A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson said: “As this is an ongoing legal matter it would not be appropriate to comment further.”

 

Issue: 7644 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll