Matthews, R (on the application of) v HMP Swaleside

A prisoner's educational and expressive rights are subject to reasonable limits consistent with the purposes of imprisonment and the proper administration and safety of the prison system. In judicial review, the decision must be assessed against the decision-maker's reasonably held view of the relevant facts at the time. The court does not decide the underlying factual issue afresh where the decision-maker had ample grounds for its belief. A refusal to permit educational work may be lawful where the proposed activity would interfere with structured offending-behaviour programmes or endanger public safety. A future application based on materially different evidence must be considered afresh.

The claimant, a life prisoner, sought judicial review of the governor's refusal to permit submission of a tutor-marked assessment to the Open University. The proposed assessment concerned research into domestic violence and involved questionnaires and interviews with serving prisoners convicted of homicide in a domestic setting.

The claimant alleged breaches of freedom of expression, the right to education, legitimate expectation, policy and the duty to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the defendant reasonably believed that the assessment was intended as the first stage of an actual research project, rather than being solely an academic exercise.

1. Claim dismissed. The refusal to permit submission of the assessment was not quashed.
2. The rights under Article 10 of the Convention and Article 2 of the First Protocol, read with Rule 32(2) of the Prison Rules, did not confer an absolute right to pursue a chosen educational course. Restrictions could be justified where consistent with the purposes of the sentence and the legitimate purposes of the prison system.
3. The decision had to be assessed in the light of the defendant's reasonably held belief when the decision was made. The court was not required to determine the claimant's true subjective purpose. There were ample grounds for believing that the proposed assessment was intended to lead to actual research, including the claimant's stated wish to save lives, his proposed questionnaire, requests for information about prisoners and interest in moving nearer a research team.
4. On that factual basis, a reasonable governor could refuse submission because access to serving life prisoners for questionnaires or interviews could interfere with structured programmes addressing offending and future risk, and could endanger public safety and the proper administration of the prison system.
5. The defendant had relied substantially on the possible effect of the research on the claimant's own offending-behaviour programme and on public perception. The court did not need to decide whether those stated reasons were themselves reasonable, rational and proportionate, because proper grounds existed for the decision and the claimant accepted that relief could not be obtained in those circumstances.
6. Obiter, if the claimant later established that the document was solely a completed assessment exercise and that no such research project was intended, the governor would have to reconsider the matter afresh. The judge indicated that refusal of an already completed assessment exercise merely because of public perception would have been unreasonable and irrational.