Anderson v Independent Adjudicator & Anor

An adjudicator deciding a prison disciplinary charge must give reasons that adequately explain the verdict. The reasons must address the material evidence and conflicts bearing on the decision, particularly where identification evidence conflicts with alibi evidence. A checklist or template showing the issues considered is insufficient if it does not reveal why one account was preferred and another rejected. The reasons must enable the prisoner to understand the decision and the court to determine whether an error of law has occurred.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, challenged by judicial review an independent adjudicator’s finding that he possessed unauthorised articles contrary to rule 51.12. The adjudicator imposed an additional 35 days’ imprisonment. The evidence included disputed identification evidence, alibi evidence from other prisoners, and conflicting evidence about whether the claimant had swallowed part of the contents of a bag. The adjudicator’s written reasons consisted mainly of brief notes and did not explain how the conflicting evidence had been evaluated.

The central issue was whether the adjudicator had provided legally adequate reasons for finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Application granted. The adjudicator was required to give reasons for both the verdict and sentence. This followed from rule 7.4 of the prison discipline manual and the possibility of challenging the finding through the courts.
2. The reasons had to be sufficiently detailed to explain to the losing party why the decision had been reached and to enable the reviewing court to identify any error of law. The importance of the hearing, including the risk of losing 35 days’ liberty, reinforced the need for adequate reasons.
3. The adjudicator’s notes identified matters such as the standard of proof, the elements of the charge, the evidence and the identification issue. They did not explain why the evidence of the prison officer was preferred, why the claimant’s evidence and the alibi evidence were rejected, or how the identification evidence was assessed against the alibi evidence.
4. The comment that it was a strange or bizarre matter to invent could not safely be treated as a sufficient explanation. It was equally necessary to consider the competing evidence and the implausibility of the alleged swallowing incident. The adjudicator’s template therefore failed to disclose the reasoning process.
5. The finding of guilt was consequently unlawful for inadequate reasons. The claim for judicial review was granted.

not stated in the judgment.