Thompson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

[2008] EWHC 3305 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2008] EWHC 3305 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
16 December 2008
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Public law Judicial review
Keywords
judicial review home detention curfew long-term prisoners academic claim non-attendance alleged discrimination
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A judicial review claim may be dismissed where subsequent events make the relief sought academic and the claimant can no longer benefit from the challenged policy. The court may also dismiss where the claimant, despite notification, fails to attend and is no longer represented, particularly where the issue requires legal assistance. A point of wider importance may properly be left for determination in another claim where the relevant evidence can be considered.

Factual background

The claimant challenged the Ministry of Justice policy that long-term prisoners were generally ineligible for home detention curfew except in exceptional circumstances. He alleged unlawful discrimination because non-national prisoners liable to deportation could be released early for removal when home detention curfew would ordinarily apply.

By the time of the hearing, the claimant had completed the detention part of his sentence and had been released. He was therefore unable to obtain any practical benefit from the claim. He had also failed to maintain contact with the Legal Services Commission and his solicitors, who had come off the record, and he did not attend the hearing.

Held

  1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had completed the detention part of his sentence, so the challenge to the application of home detention curfew had become academic and could no longer provide him with practical relief.

  2. The claimant had been notified of the hearing, but did not attend. He was no longer represented after failing to keep in contact with his solicitors. The court considered that he would in any event require legal assistance to argue the point.

  3. The underlying issue was potentially of wider importance. The court noted that it would be considered promptly in another case for which permission had been granted, once the relevant evidence was available.

  4. The claimant was given liberty to apply within 21 days if he wished to contend that he had not been notified of the hearing and sought an opportunity to be heard on whether the claim should proceed.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.