Sagar v Governor of HMP Wakefield

A prisoner’s denial of the offence for which he was convicted must not be treated as conclusive against progression, transfer or release. Prison authorities may require evidence of risk reduction, but must consider admitted violent incidents and other relevant material when assessing access to offending-behaviour programmes. A tariff-expired prisoner must not suffer disadvantage merely because he denies the index offence, provided he meets the assessor’s essential requirements. However, a staged sentence plan, including completion of a preliminary thinking-skills course before assessment for a violence programme, may be lawful where supported by professional assessment and rationally connected to risk reduction. Denial of guilt is not, without more, an “other status” for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention.

The claimant was a tariff-expired life prisoner detained at HMP Wakefield. He denied murdering the deceased but admitted matters including a volatile relationship, possessing a loaded shotgun and discharging it during an earlier incident. He challenged the refusal to transfer him to an establishment offering courses addressing violence and relationships.

He alleged irrationality and discrimination contrary to Article 14 read with Article 5 of the Convention. The transfer decisions had been made by Sentence Planning Boards. The central issues were whether the authorities had unlawfully treated denial as preventing access to relevant courses, and whether prisoners who deny their offences constitute a protected status.

1. Transfer and sentence planning. The claim concerning transfer was dismissed. The 2008 approach appeared unduly restrictive because the Prison Service had treated admission of a violent offence as necessary for assessment, whereas admitted violent incidents could logically be relevant in the same way. Nevertheless, the 2008 decision was not unlawful when the claimant’s motivation and history were taken into account.
2. The 2009 decision was lawful. The recommendation that the claimant complete the Thinking Skills Programme before assessment for CALM was supported by a registered psychologist and endorsed by the Sentence Planning Board. It was a rational first step in a continuing process capable of demonstrating reduced risk. The decision was neither irrational nor unreasonable.
3. A prisoner’s denial of the index offence cannot be conclusive against progression. The authorities must consider relevant admitted violence and must not refuse transfer or assessment solely because the prisoner is a denier. A tariff-expired prisoner should not suffer disadvantage from denial when he otherwise meets the essential requirements for assessment.
4. Article 14. Following the approach in Clift [2007] 1 AC 484, “other status” requires more than placing a person in a factual category. It concerns aspects of individuality intrinsic to the person. Refusal to admit guilt of the offence is not sufficiently central to individuality to constitute such a status. The Article 14 ground therefore failed.
5. The court inclined to the view that Article 5 was not engaged by a transfer decision between prisons, although it expressly left that question unresolved. The claim was dismissed on both grounds. Costs were ordered to be assessed, but enforcement against the publicly funded claimant required leave of the court.