Riley, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice

This judicial review concerned a severely disabled category A prisoner who alleged that the Prison Service, acting for the Secretary of State for Justice, had failed to take reasonable steps to enable him to access offender behaviour work and had failed to obtain appropriate medical advice and treatment and to make reasonable adjustments, in breach of public law duties and the Equality Act 2010. The court declined to decide the merits because there was an acknowledged lacuna in the evidence: no psychiatrist had provided a current opinion on how the claimant's cognitive and communicative deficits should be managed in relation to offender supervision and programmes. The Secretary of State agreed to obtain psychiatric advice within a reasonable period and the claim was adjourned and kept alive to allow that report to be obtained and the parties to consider its consequences.

The judge expressed a provisional view that, absent the psychiatric report, the claimant was unlikely to secure more than he had already obtained, observing that the Secretary of State had a strong position on the material read; however, that was explicitly provisional and not determinative.

Background and parties: The claimant, Philip Riley, a 56‑year‑old category A prisoner serving a 39‑year sentence who suffered a severe stroke in 2005 with significant physical and cognitive sequelae, alleged that the Prison Service and the Secretary of State for Justice failed to make reasonable adjustments and to obtain appropriate medical advice so that he could access offender behaviour work and demonstrate suitability for category downgrading prior to automatic release in 2014.

Procedural posture: Permission for judicial review had originally been refused on paper by His Honour Judge Shaun Spencer QC, was renewed and granted at an oral hearing before His Honour Judge Kay QC on 21 November 2011, and the claim came before His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC for substantive consideration.

Relief sought: Judicial review of the Secretary of State's and prison authorities' alleged failures in public law and under the Equality Act 2010; remedial directions and relief to secure assessment, treatment and reasonable adjustments to enable participation in offender programmes and proper assessment by the Parole Board.

Issues framed:

• whether the defendant breached public law duties and the Equality Act 2010 by failing to obtain appropriate medical advice and treatment;
• whether reasonable adjustments and tailored arrangements had been provided to enable the claimant to participate in offender supervision and programmes;
• what remedial steps should be ordered if deficiencies were identified.

Court's reasoning and decision: The judge emphasised that a key gap in the material was the absence of a current psychiatric opinion addressing how the claimant's speech, memory and engagement difficulties arising from the stroke should be managed in the context of offender supervision and courses. The Secretary of State accepted the need for such a report and undertook to obtain it within a reasonable period. Given that undertaking and the lack of full argument on the merits before the court, the judge declined to reach final adjudication on the substantive claims. He recorded a provisional view that the Secretary of State had a strong case on the papers but made clear that view was not determinative. The claim was adjourned generally, kept alive with liberty to restore, and reserved to the judge unless otherwise released; there was no order as to costs to date. The judge also criticised deficiencies in the trial bundles and directed that if restored the case must be presented in full compliance with CPR Part 54 and Practice Direction 54A.

Wider context: The judge described the resolution as pragmatic and emphasised the rarity of final disposal in the absence of the specialist psychiatric assessment; he warned that unwarranted restoration of the claim could attract adverse costs orders.

The court adjourned the claim and kept it alive, recording that the Secretary of State will obtain a psychiatric report within a reasonable period and implement practicable recommendations. The judge gave that disposition because a material lacuna existed in the evidence (no psychiatric opinion), making it inappropriate to determine the substantive public law and Equality Act 2010 issues on the papers; his provisional view that the defendant had a strong case was expressly not decisive.

Permission to apply for judicial review was originally refused on paper by His Honour Judge Shaun Spencer QC; the claim was renewed and permission was granted at an oral hearing before His Honour Judge Kay QC on 21 November 2011. This judgment is a first‑instance disposition by His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC.