header-logo header-logo

22 January 2010
Issue: 7401 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Prisoner

R (on the application of KB (a child, by his litigation friend LW) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 15 (Admin); [2010] All ER (D) 59 (Jan)

Section 47(1) of the Prison Act 1952 contained two limbs. The first limb had rules “for the regulation and management of prisons”. The second limb had rules “for the classification … discipline and control of persons detained therein”. The first limb of s 47(1) could scarcely intend that rules made by the secretary of state were exhaustive of all matters of “regulation and management”.

The word “management”, in particular, was very wide and there would have to be matters of management which might lawfully be prescribed at a local level outside the provisions of the rules, provided they did not conflict with any express provision of the rules. Section 47(2) required that rules make provision, cumulatively, for: (i) a prescribed and identifiable process of charge; for (ii) a prescribed and identified offence; with (iii) a prescribed proper opportunity for a person charged to present his case.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll