Nisbett v Commissioner of Prisons [2012] SC( Bda) 57 Civ
The Applicant had brought a constitutional motion to complain about his treatment whilst in prison for seven years.
The acts complained of were:
The respondent sought to strike out the claim because one should not bring a constutional motion if there are other means of legal redress.
Hellman J held that for (1), above, the applicant could have brough a civil claim for assault or battery [33]. However, the allegation of the abuse of state power meant that this might not be adequate redress in the circumstances [34]. He did not strike out the claim but invited the parties to make submissions on what should happen with that claim next [40].
Similarly for (5) above, which might constitute wrongful imprisonment, the consitutional claim would be allowed to proceed [41].
The remaining issues were more suitable for judicial review proceedings regarding whether the prison rules had been correctly applied [45]. These allegations were struck out for the constitutional motion [48]. Presumably the applicant could re-apply for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
The Applicant had brought a constitutional motion to complain about his treatment whilst in prison for seven years.
The acts complained of were:
- being beaten by prison officers or fellow prisoners on their instigation;
- subject to inhuman solitary confinement;
- being given unjustifiable restrictions on family visits;
- being given unjustifiable restrictions on his religious diet requirements;
- parole documents being destroyed by corrections officers;
- loss of earnings due to release on licence being delayed by two years;
- exposure to second-hand cigarette, cannabis and crack cocaine smoke from other cells
The respondent sought to strike out the claim because one should not bring a constutional motion if there are other means of legal redress.
Hellman J held that for (1), above, the applicant could have brough a civil claim for assault or battery [33]. However, the allegation of the abuse of state power meant that this might not be adequate redress in the circumstances [34]. He did not strike out the claim but invited the parties to make submissions on what should happen with that claim next [40].
Similarly for (5) above, which might constitute wrongful imprisonment, the consitutional claim would be allowed to proceed [41].
The remaining issues were more suitable for judicial review proceedings regarding whether the prison rules had been correctly applied [45]. These allegations were struck out for the constitutional motion [48]. Presumably the applicant could re-apply for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment