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

Prisoners have no general right to choose their place of detention. However, detention so far from close family that visits become very difficult or impossible may engage Article 8. The question is fact-sensitive and does not require exceptional circumstances. If Article 8 is engaged, the court must assess whether the location is necessary for a legitimate aim and proportionate. The context of imprisonment, including organisation and security, is important but does not remove the need for careful justification. In judicial review, the decision-maker must show that the relevant family-life and custodial considerations were properly addressed and weighed. The court dismissed the claim because the evidence did not establish an Article 8 breach and the decision-making process disclosed no legal error.

The claimant, a life prisoner held at HMP Wakefield, sought judicial review of decisions by the Governor and the Secretary of State for Justice maintaining his allocation there. He relied principally on Article 8, arguing that the distance from his family in southern England made visits difficult or impossible and that psychological support could be obtained elsewhere. The defendants relied on the claimant’s treatment and sentence-planning needs at Wakefield, together with the prison context. The court focused on the latest decision, made on 22 December 2014, while having regard to earlier decisions and the history of the process. The central issues were whether Article 8 was engaged and, if so, whether the decision was justified and proportionate.

1. Application dismissed. The court held, with some hesitation, that the claimant had not established that his location at HMP Wakefield made family visits very difficult or impossible so as to breach Article 8. The evidence concerning his mother’s circumstances and the prospect of additional visits was limited, and the recent history showed that family visits had occurred.
2. There is no free-standing requirement to demonstrate exceptional circumstances before Article 8.2 is considered. The expression is, in practice, predictive or indicative: in the prison context, Article 8.2 considerations will only rarely fail to outweigh private or family life. The proper questions are whether the location is necessary for a legitimate aim and whether it is proportionate.
3. The fact of incarceration is an important part of the context. Prison organisation and security carry weight, but their obvious consequences must not be overstated. Justification must be carefully considered in the individual case, including the evidence supporting the prison location and the availability of relevant assistance elsewhere.
4. The December 2014 review had addressed Article 8, the possibility of psychological support at other prisons, the claimant’s progress and settled position at Wakefield, and the practical advantages and disadvantages of transfer. Although the evidential basis was imperfect and the reasoning could have been more detailed, the decision-maker had demonstrated that the relevant matters had been weighed and considered. The process therefore disclosed no legal flaw requiring correction on judicial review.
5. The court made no order as to costs, apart from the order required concerning the claimant’s publicly funded legal representation.