Nealon & Anor v Governor of HMP Wakefield & Anor

A prison governor may require prisoners in a high-security prison to display identity cards when outside their wings where the requirement reasonably assists identification, security, good order and discipline. The requirement is not unlawful merely because there is no statutory obligation to comply with it. Any restrictions resulting from a prisoner’s refusal to comply are attributable to that refusal, provided the underlying requirement is lawful. Disclosure of a date of birth on the card did not seriously engage Article 8; alternatively, any interference was proportionate and justified. A disciplinary charge must be analysed by identifying the precise order disobeyed. An order to attend work may remain lawful even where the prisoner’s refusal to wear an identity card prevents attendance.

Two prisoners at Wakefield Prison sought judicial review concerning a requirement to wear identity cards on armbands whenever outside their wings. The claims challenged the requirement, its effects on access to education, work, prison pay, visits and legal representatives, alleged interference with the incentives and earned privileges scheme, and disciplinary action against one claimant for disobeying a lawful order.

The court reconsidered one claimant’s refusal of permission and heard the other claimant’s permission application. The central issues were whether the identity-card requirement was unlawful, whether disclosure of personal information infringed Convention rights, whether resulting restrictions were attributable to the requirement or to refusal to comply, and what order had been disobeyed.

1. Identity-card requirement. The requirement to wear an identity card on an armband outside the prisoner’s wing was not arguably unlawful. It served legitimate prison-management purposes, including enabling officers unfamiliar with a prisoner to identify him quickly and helping detect the collection of other prisoners’ canteen items.
2. Article 8. It was doubtful that displaying the prisoner’s name, prison number, photograph, security classification, date of birth and other information was sufficiently serious to engage Article 8. In any event, any interference with private life was a proper and proportionate means of maintaining good order and discipline.
3. Consequences of refusal. The Minister’s statement that there was no legal requirement to wear identity cards did not mean that the Governor’s requirement was unlawful. It meant that non-compliance was not itself unlawful. The prison could reasonably confine a prisoner to his wing if he refused to display the card. Consequences for education, sentence planning, exercise, prison work, pay and visits resulted from the prisoner’s refusal to comply with a lawful requirement.
4. Ultra vires and incentives. The challenge under the Prison Act 1952 was unarguable. Any initial defect concerning the information on the card was in any event cured when the Governor’s instruction was amended. The first claimant’s incentives and earned privileges warnings were imposed for refusing to attend education, not for refusing to carry an identity card; he could have attended with an escort.
5. Disciplinary order and segregation. The second claimant had been convicted for disobeying an order to attend work, not an order to wear the card. The punishment was therefore not attributable to refusal to wear the card. The length and circumstances of his segregation did not arguably breach Articles 3 or 8.
6. Both renewed applications for permission to proceed with judicial review were refused. The court also held that no permission was required before the transcript could be cited in later proceedings, its weight being for the later court to determine. The claimants’ costs were subject to detailed assessment.

These were first-instance judicial review permission applications in the Administrative Court. No appeal or earlier substantive decision is stated in the judgment.