Napier v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Where a prison adjudication results in additional days of imprisonment, it constitutes the determination of a criminal charge for Article 6 purposes. Once those days are remitted, the adjudication does not necessarily remain subject to Article 6, particularly where no penal consequence remains. The governor’s finding may be retained as an administrative finding of fact for legitimate prison-management purposes. Adequate redress may therefore consist of acknowledging the Article 6 breach and remitting the additional days. Quashing the finding is not required merely because the hearing was not Article 6 compliant.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, was found guilty at a prison adjudication after being denied legal representation and was awarded 35 additional days’ imprisonment. Following Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom [2002] 15 BHRC 145, the additional days were remitted, but the finding of guilt was retained. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal to quash that finding.

The central questions were whether the adjudication had to comply with Article 6 despite remission of the penalty, and whether the claimant remained a victim requiring further relief.

1. The application for judicial review was refused. The Secretary of State had sufficiently acknowledged the Article 6 violation and afforded adequate redress by remitting the 35 additional days.

2. A proper reading of Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom [2002] 15 BHRC 145 showed that the decisive feature crossing the boundary from disciplinary to criminal proceedings was the imposition of additional days. A theoretical risk that such a penalty might have been imposed was insufficient. On the facts, the adjudication did not require Article 6 compliance once the additional days had been remitted.

3. The threefold approach derived from Engel and others v the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, remained the relevant framework. The domestic classification was only a starting point. The nature of the offence and the nature and severity of the penalty were material, with the second and third criteria capable of operating alternatively.

4. The finding of guilt, stripped of its penal consequences, was properly characterised as an administrative finding of fact based on the evidence before the governor. It did not carry the stigma of a criminal conviction and could legitimately assist prison authorities in making informed decisions about the claimant’s management, including placement and risk assessment.

5. The claimant was no longer a victim for the purposes of Article 34. The principle of restitutio in integrum did not require the finding to be quashed. The court could not speculate about what decision might have been reached had legal representation been provided, and the approach in Anufrijeva v Southwark London Borough Council [2004] 2 WLR 603 was concerned with financial compensation and did not govern this case.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The application was refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).