Jolly v HM Prison Wandsworth

A prison governor may act on a valid county court committal warrant. The nomination of the prison is an administrative matter under section 120 of the County Courts Act 1984, not a matter requiring judicial determination. Constables, including police officers, must assist in executing such warrants under section 119(2). A prisoner has a common law right of unimpeded access to the courts, but that does not create an entitlement to attend every hearing on request. Any complaint about refusal of attendance involves a distinct cause of action and does not itself make lawful imprisonment unlawful.

The claimant had been committed for contempt after failing to comply with orders concerning the sale and possession of his former matrimonial home. He was arrested under a warrant which initially named Wormwood Scrubs, although Wandsworth Prison was the prison designated for the relevant county court. The warrant was administratively amended before execution.

The High Court dismissed claims for false imprisonment, negligence and loss arising from the warrant, the claimant’s detention, refusal to allow attendance at hearings, and allegedly inaccurate prison records. The claimant sought permission to appeal, relying on further evidence and eight grounds challenging those conclusions.

1. Permission refused. The claimant showed no real prospect that a full court would allow an appeal.
2. The warrant was valid. Under section 120 of the County Courts Act 1984, the Secretary of State nominated the prison to be used by each court. Filling in the correct prison name was therefore a mechanical administrative task. It did not alter the judge’s decision or require judicial approval. The governor was entitled to act on the warrant.
3. Section 119(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 imposed a duty on every constable to assist the district judge and bailiffs in executing a warrant. Police officers were constables, so their assistance in the arrest was lawful.
4. The claimant’s reliance on Smith v Smith (Court of Appeal transcript 355) did not assist him. That case concerned a committal order which failed to state the facts found. It did not establish that the prison designation in this warrant required judicial action.
5. There was a common law duty not to place unjustified obstacles in a prisoner’s way of accessing the courts, based on Raymond v Honey [1982] 1 All ER 756. However, as explained in Becker v The Home Office [1972] 2 QB 407, that duty was distinct from an obligation to allow attendance at court whenever requested. Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provided a mechanism for securing attendance where desirable in the interests of justice.
6. Any failure to permit attendance did not convert lawful imprisonment into false imprisonment. A separate claim would require different pleadings and evidence. The proposed late amendment was properly refused, and there was no basis for interfering with that discretionary decision.
7. The complaints about prison records and the Data Protection Act 1984 did not establish that the records were misleading or erroneous. The records had been retained for the purposes of the proceedings. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the earlier committal order could not succeed because an appeal against it had already been dismissed.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Justice Nelson dismissed the claimant’s action on 27 July 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lady Justice Hale refused permission to appeal.