Saxena, R (on the application of) v HM Prison Service

Judicial review requires a decision or adjudication capable of supervision by the court. Complaints, investigations, correspondence, or administrative difficulties do not themselves create a reviewable decision where no public authority has made a determination. A claim concerning money allegedly owed is ordinarily a civil debt claim rather than a judicial review claim. An apparent prison adjudication cannot be reviewed where it was never proceeded with and therefore never existed as an adjudication.

Dr Saxena sought permission to appeal from decisions of Moses J and Hooper J in the Administrative Court concerning six applications for judicial review arising from events during his custody in the Prison Service.

The applications concerned the forwarding of post, treatment during a prison transfer, an alleged attack by another prisoner, delay in transferring money to his account, and two apparent adjudications concerning refusal to occupy an allocated cell and refusal to undergo a strip search. Moses J rejected or deferred the relevant applications. Hooper J refused permission in relation to the two apparent adjudications.

The central issue was whether the matters complained of involved decisions susceptible to judicial review.

Lord Justice Longmore refused permission to appeal in all six matters.

1. The four matters considered by Moses J did not disclose reviewable decisions. The difficulty concerning post was attributed to the Post Office. The complaint about treatment during transfer had been investigated by Group 4. The complaint about the prisoner attack had been investigated, and the prisoners had subsequently been separated. None involved a decision of an administrative authority capable of being resolved by judicial review.

2. The delay in transferring money to Dr Saxena’s account likewise disclosed no reviewable administrative decision. If money remained due, the appropriate remedy was civil proceedings for a civil debt.

3. The two apparent adjudications concerned an alleged refusal to occupy an allocated cell and an alleged refusal to comply with a lawful strip-search order. After the Home Office attended, the documents showed that neither adjudication had been proceeded with. The words indicating that they were not proceeded with meant that no adjudication existed.

4. Only an adjudication can properly be the subject of judicial review. Since there were no adjudications, there was nothing for the court to supervise. Hooper J was therefore correct to refuse permission, and there was no realistic prospect of successfully challenging Moses J’s decisions.

Applications for permission to appeal refused.

• High Court, Administrative Court: Moses J dealt with four judicial review applications on 27 July 2000 and deferred two further applications concerning apparent prison adjudications. Hooper J subsequently refused permission in relation to those two matters.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Longmore refused permission to appeal in respect of all six matters.