Dhanota, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

Where a directions hearing has not been designated as an oral permission hearing, the claimant should retain the procedural entitlement to a decision by a single judge on the papers and to renew the application before another judge. In prison litigation, access to the courts may require reasonable access to relevant equipment and materials, but the court should avoid prescribing detailed operational arrangements where the practical position remains uncertain. A blanket policy of seeking handcuffing orders for prisoners is inadequate: proper grounds must exist and all relevant circumstances must be considered. A prisoner’s security file may lawfully be maintained, but the use made of entries requires careful scrutiny.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, brought five judicial review applications concerning access to information technology and legal materials, the prison telephone system, handcuffing at court appearances, private cash limits and the prison canteen system. The applications relied principally on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The court was convened for directions. The defendant sought to treat the hearing, at least in some cases, as the oral hearing of the applications for permission. The claimant objected, stating that he would have sought assistance from a Mackenzie friend had he known that permission would be determined orally. The central procedural issue was whether the applications should proceed as directions matters or be finally considered at that hearing.

1. Mr Justice Newman declined to treat the directions hearing as the oral hearing of the applications for permission. The claimant was entitled to a decision from a single judge and to renew an application before another judge. The court therefore confined itself to directions. The applications could be withdrawn or placed before the single judge on updated papers.

2. In relation to access to legal materials and equipment, the court recorded concessions that clause 2 of the IT compact would be deleted and that printing would be available at reasonable times at a cost of 1p per page. The defendant was directed to provide facilities for the claimant to inspect CDs and discs delivered to the prison, with relevant materials then capable of being retained for legal purposes. The detailed mode of operation was left to events.

3. In relation to handcuffing, R v Mullen (Crim.L.R. 2000.893) confirmed that the court, rather than the prison authorities, was responsible for making the order. An application should not be advanced without proper grounds. A blanket policy that prisoners from a particular prison should be handcuffed was insufficient. All the circumstances, including the security arrangements at the relevant court, had to be considered.

4. The maintenance of a security file concerning a prisoner was lawful. Entries might have doubtful evidential status but could nevertheless be recorded. The critical question was the use made of those entries. The claimant was directed to reconsider the handcuffing claim in light of delay and earlier unsuccessful litigation, and the court identified a possible abuse-of-process issue.

5. For the claims concerning the PIN telephone system, private cash and the canteen, the court gave directions for further consideration. It noted, among other matters, the relevance of Article 8(2), the availability under the Prison Rules of authorisation to use personal funds for legal purposes, and the absence of an explained Convention connection in the canteen claim. The new claim concerning the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s report was to be considered by the single judge.