MA (Formerly A Child But Now of Full Age) & Ors v Independent Adjudicator & Director, HMYOI Ashfield

Removal from association in a young offender institution must comply with the statutory segregation regime and its safeguards. A short-term restriction imposed for genuine risk management may affect access to education where it is not punitive and education is gradually restored. An informal gym ban is unlawful where it is punitive and lacks a lawful basis. The national incentives and earned privileges scheme may operate alongside disciplinary proceedings, although an unpublished local policy inconsistent with national guidance cannot create a legitimate expectation. Judicial review of privilege decisions requires an exceptionally strong case, such as bad faith or crude irrationality. Procedural fairness requires relevant adjudication material to be provided to a detainee’s legal representative sufficiently before the hearing.

Seven young people serving custodial sentences at HMYOI Ashfield challenged decisions taken after a serious disturbance. Their challenges concerned alleged informal segregation, reductions under the Incentive and Earned Privileges scheme, missed education, a gym suspension and procedural failures in independent adjudications.

The adjudications and sanctions had already been quashed or conceded. The remaining issues concerned the legality of the defendants’ management measures and the failure to disclose adjudication papers to a legal representative before a hearing.

1. Informal segregation. The five claimants restricted on Phoenix Wing between 3 and 6 February 2012 were confined to their cells and released only for limited activities. This was removal from association and therefore segregation by another name. It fell within Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, rule 49, but had not complied with rule 49 or the safeguards in PSO 1700. Declaratory relief was granted.
2. IEP status. PSI 11/2011 permitted disciplinary proceedings and an IEP review arising from the same conduct. The unpublished local policy was inconsistent with the national policy but was not circulated to the young people and could not create a legitimate expectation. The short recording of MB and B as being on Bronze after segregation was treated as a computer error. The challenge to the IEP decisions did not meet the exceptionally high threshold for judicial review identified in R v The Parole Board ex parte Winfield.
3. Education. Rule 38(1) did not prohibit temporary restrictions for reasons other than punishment. The gradual reintroduction of the claimants to education after the disturbance was genuine risk management and was lawful.
4. Gym suspension. The evidence did not establish that the gym policy was relied upon or that the suspension was imposed for risk management. Its blanket and punitive character, based on property damage, placed it outside the statutory rules and made it unlawful.
5. Adjudication disclosure. Ashfield failed to provide relevant adjudication papers, including witness statements, to MB’s solicitor before the hearing. This breached PSI 47/2011 and Article 6 ECHR. Declaratory relief was granted.
6. Costs. Because the challenges had changed, some grounds had been withdrawn and the result was mixed, the fair order was no order as to costs.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The adjudications challenged in the proceedings had previously been quashed or conceded, leaving the legality of related management measures and disclosure obligations for determination.