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

A judicial review directed to a refusal of special purpose prison leave may conclude when the decision is reconsidered and the claimant obtains the substantive relief sought. The proceedings cannot ordinarily remain open to address later applications for leave, even where those applications relate to the same underlying subject matter. Any challenge to a subsequent refusal must be brought in fresh proceedings. Once the judicial review has been effectively resolved, there is no continuing scope for interim relief designed to enable preparation of that claim. The court should make a final order recording the basis on which the claim has ended.

The claimant, a serving prisoner, applied for special purpose licences to leave prison so that he could inspect documents connected with a compulsory purchase inquiry concerning property interests. The original refusal was challenged by judicial review. Permission was granted, and the Secretary of State reconsidered the application. The claimant was subsequently granted several periods of leave, totalling 12 days, although a later application for 12 further days was refused.

By the hearing, the compulsory purchase inquiry had ceased to be necessary because the objection had been withdrawn. The claimant sought an adjournment, further directions and interim relief relating to documents and possible future applications for leave. The central issues were whether the existing judicial review could remain open for those future applications and whether any interim relief remained available.

1. The judicial review had concluded. The claimant had obtained reconsideration of the refusal challenged in the proceedings and had been granted special purpose leave. The application had therefore succeeded in the relevant sense, but it had come to an end.
2. The proceedings could not be used for future applications. The permission order was not to be interpreted as keeping the claim open for later requests for special purpose leave connected with the valuation or other future conduct concerning the Welsh properties. A challenge to a later refusal would require separate judicial review proceedings.
3. No further adjournment was appropriate. The court was required to make a final order in relation to the judicial review rather than continue the claim indefinitely.
4. Interim relief was unavailable. The proposed interim order was intended to provide access to documents for preparation of the judicial review. In light of the reconsideration, the leave granted and the court’s ability to determine the proceedings, there was no remaining scope for such an order.
5. The judicial review was to be dismissed or otherwise finally disposed of with a recital making clear that the claim had ended because the Secretary of State had reconsidered the decision and granted special purpose leave. There was no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of the claimant’s legally aided costs.